Dismissed¶84

Sanjay Kumar Sahu v. Haripariya Pattnaik

Orissa HC19 Sept 2025CMP/476/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Analogous hearing of suits — power under Section 151 CPC — distinction between analogous/simultaneous hearing and consolidation (S.C. Jain v. Bindeshwari Devi, 1997 SCC OnLine Del 417, relied on) — same property and parties insufficient absent connection of issues — eviction suit vs specific performance suit — Article 227 — order of Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar dated 27.02.2025 upheld — C.M.P. No.476 of 2025 dismissed (B.P. Routray, J., High Court of Orissa, 19.09.2025).

What did the court decide?

Though the Civil Procedure Code prescribes no guideline for analogous hearing, a court may, in exercise of its power under Section 151 CPC, direct analogous hearing of two or more suits where found necessary to avoid multiplicity of orders or conflict in adjudication of the issues. ¶31

Sanjay Kumar Sahu Vs Haripariya Pattnaik — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶84

Issue for consideration

Whether the two pending suits, C.S. No.1780 of 2018 (eviction and arrear rent) and C.S. No.10 of 2019 (specific performance of contract), involving the same property and the same parties before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar, are required to be heard and tried analogously, notwithstanding the trial court's rejection of the analogous-hearing application.

¶24

Court's answer

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Sameness of the property involved and sameness of the parties, standing alone, do not render analogous trial of two suits obligatory.

¶74

Key takeaways

The true requirement for hearing two or more suits analogously is the existence of a connection between the issues framed in both suits, so that there would be no conflicting finding on the same issues.ratio¶74
On the issues as framed, the issue of eviction of the Defendant in the earlier suit (C.S. No.1780 of 2018) is unconnected to the issue of execution of the specific contract in the later suit (C.S. No.10 of 2019); the two suits are therefore distinct and unconnected to each other.ratio¶75

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 27.02.2025 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.1780 of 2018 refusing analogous hearing of that suit (by the Opposite Parties for eviction of the Petitioner and realization of Rs.60,000/- arrear rent, water and electricity charges) and C.S. No.10 of 2019 (by the Petitioner, Defendant in the earlier suit, for specific performance of an alleged oral contract of sale of the same land). Held, relying on S.C. Jain v. Bindeshwari Devi, 1997 SCC OnLine Del 417 (distinguishing analogous/simultaneous hearing, consolidation in entirety, and consolidation for trial): although the CPC lays down no guideline, a court may under Section 151 CPC direct analogous hearing to avoid multiplicity of orders or conflicting findings; however, sameness of property and parties alone does not compel it — the true requirement is connection between the issues framed in both suits. The eviction issues and the specific-performance issues were distinct and unconnected; the earlier suit was ready for argument while the later was at a preliminary stage, and trying them together would delay the earlier suit. Trial court's order upheld; CMP dismissed.

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 26-Sep-2025 15:00:12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

C.M.P. No.476 of 2025

¶5

(In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)

¶6

Sanjay Kumar Sahu …. Petitioner -versus- Haripriya Pattnaik and others …. Opposite Parties

¶7

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Pattanaik, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. G.R. Mishra, Advocate For O.P. Nos.1 to 12

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

19^th September 2025

¶12

B.P. Routray, J.

¶13

1. Heard Mr. S. Pattanaik, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and

¶14

Mr. G.R. Mishra, learned Advocate for Opposite Parties 1 to 12.

¶15

2. Present C.M.P. is directed against the order dated 27.02.2025 of

¶16

the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar passed in C.S. No.1780 of 2018.

¶17

3. The case of the Petitioner is that, he is the Defendant in C.S.

¶18

No.1780 of 2018, which is filed by present Opposite Parties praying

¶19

C.M.P. No.476 of 2025

¶20

Page 1 of 8

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 26-Sep-2025 15:00:12

¶23

for eviction of the Defendant and realization of arrear rent amount. Subsequently, the present Petitioner, who is the Defendant in the earlier suit, filed C.S. No.10 of 2019 praying for specific performance of contract in respect of the same suit property involved in C.S. No.1780 of 2018.

¶24

4. According to Mr. S. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner, both the suits are pending before the same court, i.e. learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar and the properties involved in both the suits are same. Since both the suits are proceeding independently, the present Petitioner filed a petition dated 02.12.2024 for analogous hearing of both the suits. But the same was rejected by the learned trial court vide his order dated 27.2.2025 under Annexure-6. It is submitted by Mr. Pattanaik that since both the suits involving same property and between same parties are pending before the same court, it is desirable to hear both the suits analogously to avoid any kind of adverse order.

¶25

5. Conversely Mr. G.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties 1 to 12 submits that, the suit filed by them, i.e. C.S. No.1780 of 2018 is ready for argument after both the parties have adduced their evidence whereas the other suit, i.e. C.S. No.10 of 2019, it is only

¶26

C.M.P. No.476 of 2025

¶27

Page 2 of 8

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 26-Sep-2025 15:00:12

¶30

awaiting commencement of hearing after framing of issues. According to Mr. Mishra, the attempt made by the present Petitioner, who is Defendant in C.S. No.1780 of 2018, is only to linger the suit filed by the present Opposite Parties with a prayer for eviction of the present Petitioner.

¶31

6. It is true that, the Civil Procedure Code does not prescribe any guideline for analogous hearing of two or more suits though the court in exercise of his power under Section 151, C.P.C. can direct for analogous hearing of two or more suits if found necessary to avoid multiplicity in orders or conflict in adjudication of the issues concerned.

¶32

7. In S.C. Jain v. Bindeshwari Devi, 1997 SCC OnLine Del 417 ,

¶33

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have explained as follows:-

¶34

“ 21. Three neighbouring concepts, often confused with each other, may be made precise. They are (i) a direction for analogous or simultaneous hearing of the suits; (ii) consolidation of suits in their entirety and (iii) consolidation of suits for the purpose of trial.

¶35

21.1 A direction for analogous or simultaneous hearing of the suits requires the court to take up the two suits for hearing on the same date. The identity of the suits remains distinct and

¶36

C.M.P. No.476 of 2025 Page 3 of 8

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 26-Sep-2025 15:00:12

¶39

independent from each other. It is not merged either wholly or even partially. The hearing takes place separately in each suit though on the same date. Such are the cases where on account of similar or same question of law arising for decision in different suits or the same material witness being required to be examined in different suits, for the sake of convenience the court directs the suits to be taken up for hearing on one day. There may be cases where in spite of the parties and or the subject matter being different, not attracting applicability of Section 10, Section 151 CPC, the Court feels that while hearing one suit, it must keep a watch on the progress of or developments in the other suit, and therefore, directs the two suits to come up for hearing on the same day.

¶40

21.2 Consolidation of suits in entirety results into merger of the two suits into one, the two suits loosing their independent existence for all practical purposes after the order of consolidation. Take for example a suit for recovery of rent filed by the same landlord against the same tenant in respect of the same property and the same tenancy but for different periods, say three years each or take a case of two suits attracting applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC but having been filed on the same day. Consolidation of suits may enable a court striking out consolidated issues. The two suits can be disposed of by one common judgment followed by one decree.

¶41

21.3 Consolidation of suits for trial merely or partial consolidation enables the evidence in the two suits being recorded in one suit only and the evidence so recorded being read in the other suit as well. In spite of the consolidated trial having taken place the two suits remain separate and distinct from each other. They may be disposed of by one judgment or

¶42

C.M.P. No.476 of 2025

¶43

Page 4 of 8

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 26-Sep-2025 15:00:12

¶46

two judgments on the same evidence but in any case two decrees shall have to be drawn up at the end. Take for example the case of cross suits filed on a cause of action arising out of the same transaction. One suit may be dismissed and the other may be decreed. The two decrees in the two suits will be different. One out of the two parties may appeal against one and may not appeal against the other if the bar of res judicata is not attracted while doing so. Take the case of an owner of limited estate having made several alienations in favour of different persons and the transactions having been challenged by the reversioners in different suits against different purchasers some suit may be decreed some may be dismissed though evidence may be common and common questions of law and facts arise. In spite of consolidation for trial of the suits and disposed of by the court pronouncing one or more judgments separate decrees shall have to be drawn up.”

¶47

8. In the present facts of the case at hand, it is seen that though the properties involved in both the suits are same and the parties are also same, the reliefs sought for in both the suits are different in nature. In C.S. No.1780 of 2018, the prayer for eviction of the Defendant along with realization of arrear rent amount. In C.S. No.10 of 2019, the prayer is for specific performance of contract for sale of the suit land, which is same land in C.S. No.1780 of 2018. The certified copies of the issues framed in both the suits, as produced by Mr. G.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties 1 to 12, reveal the issues as follows:-

¶48

C.M.P. No.476 of 2025 Page 5 of 8

¶49

Signature Not Verified

¶50

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 26-Sep-2025 15:00:12

¶51

“ C.S. No.1780 of 2018

¶52

ISSUES

¶53

(I) Whether the suit is maintainable.

¶54

(II) Whether plaintiffs have cause of action to bring the suit against the defendant.

¶55

(III) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation.

¶56

(IV) Whether the suit suffers from non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties.

¶57

(V) Whether the suit is grossly undervalued.

¶58

(VI) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for an order of eviction as against the defendant from the suit house.

¶59

(VII) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for a decree to realize Rs.60,000/from the defendant towards arrear house rent, arrear water and electricity charges with 12% pendent-lite and future interest per annum.

¶60

(VIII) To what other relief(s), plaintiffs are entitled to ?

¶61

C.S. No.10 of 2019

¶62

ISSUES

¶63

(I) Whether the suit is maintainable.

¶64

(II) Whether plaintiff has cause of action to bring the suit against the defendants.

¶65

(III) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation.

¶66

(IV) Whether there was oral contract between the plaintiff and defendants for sale of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs.

¶67

(V) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Specific Performance of Contract against defendants directing them to execute sale deed in his favour after receiving balance consideration amount.

¶68

(VI) To what other relief(s), plaintiff is entitled to ?”

¶69

C.M.P. No.476 of 2025

¶70

Page 6 of 8

¶71

Signature Not Verified

¶72

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 26-Sep-2025 15:00:12

¶73

9. As seen from above issues, they are found distinct to each other

¶74

in both the suits. It is not that the issues relating to eviction in C.S. No.1780 of 2018 have any connection to the issues for specific performance of contract as involved in C.S. No.10 of 2019. It needs to be reminded here that the contract as claimed by the Plaintiffs in C.S. No.10 of 2019 is alleged to be the oral contract and undisputedly the present Petitioner is in possession of the suit property involved in both the suits. It is not that only for the reason that the properties involved in both the suits and the parties involved are also same, both the suits are required to be tried analogously. The true requirement for hearing two or more suits analogously is the need for connection in issues framed thereof in both the suits so that there would not be any conflicting finding on the same issues. The issue for eviction of the Defendant in

¶75

the earlier suit is found unconnected to the issue of execution of specific contract in the later suit. So, it can safely be opined that both the suits are distinct and unconnected to each other. The other fact taken into account in the present case is that the earlier suit, i.e. C.S. No.1780 of 2018 is ready for argument and disposal whereas the later suit, i.e. C.S. No.10 of 2019 is at the preliminary stage awaiting commencement of evidence from both sides, and it is true that the

¶76

C.M.P. No.476 of 2025

¶77

Page 7 of 8

¶78

Signature Not Verified

¶79

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 26-Sep-2025 15:00:12

¶80

Plaintiff in the later suit did not come earlier with such prayer despite

¶81

he was Defendant in the earlier suit. Therefore, the learned trial court

¶82

came to the finding of that if both the suits are tried together, it will delay the process of adjudication of the earlier suit.

¶83

10. Taking totality of the circumstances, the issues framed in both the suits and the distinct nature of prayer of the parties therein, this Court agrees with the finding of the learned trial court that both the suits are not required to be heard analogously.

¶84

11. In the result, the CMP is dismissed.

¶85

(B.P. Routray) Judge

¶86

B.K. Barik/Secretary

¶87

C.M.P. No.476 of 2025

¶88

Page 8 of 8

Sanjay Kumar Sahu v. Haripariya Pattnaik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Sahu v. Haripariya Pattnaik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayaram Jena Vs Lingaraj Ojha

Uttam Kumar Nayak Vs Umakanta Nayak

Pravat Kumar Sahoo Vs Aswathy S, IAS

Ashok Kumar Hati Vs Tamishra Barik

Wasim Akhter Warsi Vs the Tahasildar Sadar, Sambalpur

Manoj Kumar Mohanty Vs Basanta Manjari Hota @ Mohanty