Disposed¶28

Satish Prabhakar More v. Kolilabai Pralhadrao Dhote Thr. Spl Poa Holder, Shaligram B. Dhore and Anr.

Civil Procedure – Consolidation of suits

Bombay HC24 Jun 2025WP/1439/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Consolidation of civil suits; Section 151 CPC inherent powers; Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction; same suit property but different causes of action, issues and parties; no common evidence or common judgment; simultaneous trial before same Court on same dates; Regular Civil Suit No.124 of 2020 and No.94 of 2024; Gat No.284 Mouza Borgaon Khurd, Akola; Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement (2004) 3 SCC 85; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs; impugned rejection of consolidation left undisturbed; both suits to be listed before the same Court on the same dates and conducted simultaneously. ¶28

Satish Prabhakar More vs Kolilabai Pralhadrao Dhote… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's order dated 03.12.2024 rejecting the application for consolidation of Regular Civil Suit No.124 of 2020 and Regular Civil Suit No.94 of 2024 warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The trial Court duly considered the relevant aspects and passed a reasoned order rejecting the consolidation application.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The cause of action and issues involved in the two suits are different; therefore there is no need to consolidate both civil suits for recording common evidence and delivering a common judgment.

¶24

Key takeaways

Given the differing causes of action and controversies, the same evidence cannot be recorded in both the suits, nor can they be decided by way of common judgment.ratio¶24
The Supreme Court decision in Chitivalasa Jute Mills relied on by the petitioner is not of any assistance to him.ratio¶25
There is no perversity in the trial Court's rejection of the consolidation application, and no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Procedure — Consolidation of suits — No statutory provision; consolidation, if at all, under inherent powers flowing from Section 151 CPC — Trial Court rightly refused consolidation of Regular Civil Suit No.124 of 2020 (by defendant facing suit for removal of encroachment, possession, damages, mesne profit and permanent injunction) with Regular Civil Suit No.94 of 2024 (by adjacent land owners seeking declaration and permanent injunction claiming right of way from eastern side of same Gat No.284, Mouza Borgaon Khurd, Taluka and District Akola) — Issues, causes of action and parties differ except some; common evidence and common judgment not feasible — Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement, (2004) 3 SCC 85, relied on by petitioner, held not of any assistance — No perversity in trial Court's reasoned order; no interference warranted under Article 227 — Petition disposed of with no order as to costs; both suits may be listed before the same Court on the same dates and tried simultaneously for convenience of parties.

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:12155

¶2

1211WP1439-25.odt

¶3

1 Judgment

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1439 OF 2025

¶6

Satish Prabhakar More, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Service, R/o Borgaon Khurd, Tq. and Dist. Akola and also R/o Plot no.23, Professor Colony, Ranpise Nagar, Akola, Tq. and Dist. Akola.

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Kokilabai Pralhadrao Dhote, Aged Adult, Occ: Agriculturist.

¶10

Deepak Pralhadrao Dhote, Aged-Adult, Occ: Agriculturist and Service.

¶11

Both R/o Borgaon Khurd, Tq. and Dist. Akola. At present R/o Mumbai, Dist. Mumbai. Through SPL POA holder Shaligram Bhikaji Dhore, aged about Adult, Occ:Agriculturist, R/o Borgaon Khurd, Tq. and Dist. Akola.

¶12

RESPONDENTS

¶13

Shri A.R. Deshpande, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sagar Katkar, counsel for the respondents.

¶14

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 12, 2025

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the counsel for the parties.

¶17

The petitioner’s challenge in the instant petition is to the order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.124 of 2020 rejecting the application for consolidation of two civil suits bearing Regular Civil suit No.124 of 2020 and Regular Civil Suit No.94 of 2024.

¶18

The petitioner is original defendant in Regular Civil Suit no.124 of 2020 which is a suit for removal of encroachment, possession, damages, mesne profit and permanent injunction with respect to the suit property bearing agriculture land Gat no.284 of Mouza Borgaon Khurd, Taluka and

¶19

1211WP1439-25.odt 2 Judgment

¶20

District Akola. The adjacent land owners of the suit property have filed Regular Civil Suit no.94 of 2024 seeking declaration and permanent injunction claiming right of way from the eastern side of Gat No.284. Since the suit property is same in both the civil suits, the petitioner/defendant in Regular Civil Suit no.124 of 2020 filed an application at Exhibit 42 seeking consolidation of Regular Civil Suit no.94 of 2024 for recording evidence and decision alongwith Regular Civil Suit no.124 of 2020. The plaintiffs opposed this application and by order dated 03.12.2024, it came to be rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has file the instant petition.

¶21

Primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, since both the civil suits are with respect to the same property and the issues involved are likely to be same and to avoid conflicting findings, the evidence in both the suits need to be recorded at the same time by consolidating both the civil suits. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the civil suits need to be consolidated to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble supreme Court in Chitivalasa Jute Mills Versus Jaypee Rewa Cement [ (2004) 3 SCC 85 ].

¶22

Shri Sagar Katkar, learned counsel for the respondents by inviting attention to the pleadings and prayer clauses of both the civil suits submitted that the causes of action and reliefs claimed in both the suits are different and recording of common evidence would create confusion and complications. He submitted that both the suits need to be decided separately and opposed the request for consolidation of the civil suits.

¶23

1211WP1439-25.odt 3 Judgment

¶24

On a perusal of the pleadings in both the civil suits and the reliefs sought, it becomes amply clear that the issues involved in both the suits are not similar although the property involved is same i.e. Gat no.284. Apart from this, the cause of action in both the civil suits is also different and even the parties to the suit are not the same except some of the parties. In view of the cause of action of two civil suits and the controversy involved being different, same evidence cannot be recorded in both the suits. So also considering the nature of controversy involved in both the suits, they cannot be decided by way of common judgment. Regular Civil Suit no.124 of 2020 is for removal of encroachment and possession whereas Regular Civil Suit no.94 of 2024 is filed by the adjacent land owners claiming right of way from the eastern side of suit property and seeking declaration in that regard. As such, considering the fact that the cause of action and issues involved in both the suits are different, I am of the firm opinion that there is no need to consolidate both the civil suits for recording common evidence and delivering common judgment. At the most, in view of the fact that the suits are with respect to the same property, both the civil suits can be tried on the same day by making such request to the concerned Courts only for the sake of convenience of the parties.

¶25

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial Court has given due consideration to the relevant aspects and has passed a reasoned order. Pertinent to note, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chitivalasa Jute Mills (supra) has specifically observed that there is no provision for consolidation of the suits but the same can be done under inherent powers of the Court flowing from Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The judgment is not of any assistance to the petitioner.

¶26

1211WP1439-25.odt 4 Judgment

¶27

Considering the controversy involved in both the civil suits, I do not find any perversity in the approach of the trial Court rejecting the application for consolidation of the suits. In view of abovementioned legal and factual aspects, no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, proceedings of both the suits can be conducted simultaneously, by listing both the cases before the same Court on the same dates.

¶28

In view of aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. Rule accordingly.

¶29

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶30

APTE

¶31

Signed by: Apte Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 15/11/2025 15:14:43

Satish Prabhakar More v. Kolilabai Pralhadrao Dhote Thr. Spl Poa Holder, Shaligram B. Dhore and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Prabhakar More v. Kolilabai Pralhadrao Dhote Thr. Spl Poa Holder, Shaligram B. Dhore and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Priti W/O. Manoj Bundile vs Honble Minister, Rural Development, Mumbai and Ors.

Sonali W/O Trushant Walde vs Babita Wd/O Girish Badole

Shakuntalabai W/O Shrikant Jaiswal Thr. P.O.a., Holder, Prashant Shrikant Jaiswal and Another vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Excise and Prohibition, Mumbai and Another

Deepak Badrinarayan Agrawal and Another vs the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Ors.

Shri Murlidhar Mandir Devasthan Trust, Pundi vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Murlidhar Mandir Devasthan Trust Pundi vs the State of Maharashtra and Others