Gurvinder Singh v. Praveen Nagpal & Ors.

1. All these four petitions are connected and since a common issue has been raised in all these four petitions, these have been taken up together.

2. The petitioner herein is Mr. Gurvinder Singh. He has filed one suit and is also defending three suits filed by different plaintiffs.

3. In all the three suits, in which he is defendant, issues have already been framed and in the suit filed by him, as apprised by learned counsel for petitioner, issues are likely to be framed, very shortly.

4. The grievance is with respect to the order dated 09.12.2024 whereby the learned Trial Court has refused to consolidate all such four cases.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Civil Court has inherent power to pass such order of consolidation. He submits that in view of the common facts involved in all the four cases, it is, even otherwise, necessary for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court that all such cases are consolidated so that there is no unnecessary delay in the matter and there is no duplication of recording of evidence.

6. Undoubtedly, wherever, any Civil Court is of the view that the consolidation would save time and avoid unnecessary multiplicity of the proceedings and if such suits raise similar kind of issues, the Court can always consolidate such cases. There is no debate, therefore, with respect to legal proposition. CM(M) 1289/2025 & three connected matters 3

7. However, in the case in hand, the learned Trial Court went on to observe that all the four suits are different and different reliefs were being sought by the plaintiff. It also noted that subject matter of the suit in all the suits was different and issues were also different. It also noted that the parties are also not same and, therefore, there is a probability that one might succeed in one case whereas the other may not and if the suits are, therefore, consolidated, it might create confusion, even otherwise, as the sale deeds, upon which the claim of the plaintiffs are based, were executed on different dates. Therefore, while giving the aforesaid reason, it has declined the request of consolidation but at the same time, it has also, in no uncertain terms, noted that since defence in the three suits, in which the petitioner herein is defendant, is same, all such suits shall be listed for the purpose of hearing, on same day.

8. After hearing arguments and on careful perusal of the material presented before this Court, this Court does not find any compelling reason to interfere with the aforesaid order. Since learned Trial Court has already directed that all such suits shall be taken up together on same day, the purpose, to a very large extent, stands achieved as in such a situation, there is no possibility of there being any kind of conflicting judgments.

9. Viewed thus, all the four petitions are dismissed.

10. However, learned Trial Court, as it has already categorically indicated and observed, would ensure that all such suits are taken up together.

11. All the pending applications also stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

JUDGE JULY 23, 2025/dr/shs