Himachal Pradesh High Court: In the present petition, where the petitioner had prayed for quashing the two impugned orders wherein his application for consolidation of four civil suits was dismissed and thereafter, allowing the consolidation of the said suits, a Single Judge Bench of Ajay Mohan Goel, J., held that an application for consolidation of multiple suits could not be filed under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’), as it is concerned only with the principle of res subjudice. The Court ordered the Trial Court to hear the matter afresh and decide the same based on the contents of the application.
In the case at hand, the petitioner had sought an order calling for the records of four related civil suits pending before the Trial Court and challenged the legality and propriety of two impugned orders dated 25-04-2023, praying that those orders be quashed and set aside. He further requested that once the impugned orders were set aside, the Court allowed his application under Section 151 CPC for clubbing or consolidating the aforementioned suits so that they may be heard together. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner would only be pressing one impugned order and giving up on the other because of technical reasons.
The Court noted that the Trial Court had dismissed the application stating that there was no provision provided for clubbing of cases involving common issues, and the only provision in this regard is Section 10 CPC which does not allow clubbing. The Court opined that the Trial Court misdirected itself by ruling that there was no concept of consolidation or clubbing the cases.
The Court clarified that Section 10 CPC relates to the principle of res subjudice wherein, a subsequent suit filed between the same parties on the same cause must be stayed in the light of the pendency of the earlier suit. It is not concerned with the issue of clubbing or consolidating the cases. The Court opined that to avoid multiplicity of recording of evidence etc., as also the adjudication in isolation of one lis which may have bearing on the other lis, cases are clubbed and consolidated, but there is no straight jacket formula that every such application should either be allowed or rejected as was done by the Trial Court when it ruled that there was no provision for clubbing or consolidation of cases.
Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order observing that it was not sustainable in the eyes of law. Further, the Court ordered the revival of the application for clubbing and consolidation of the cases with a direction to the Trial Court to decide the same based on the contents of the application.
[Hardeep Singh v. Manohar Lal, 2025 SCC OnLine HP 5249, decided on 28-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Tamanna Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate.