Meteor Estates Pvt.Ltd vs Harish Satyanarayan Mishra

2026:BHC-OS:11385
19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
by RAJESHWARI
SUBODH
KARVE
Date:
2026.05.04
13:09:16 +0530
RAJESHWARI
SUBODH
KARVE
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.8592 OF 2026
IN
SUIT NO.642 OF 2015

1 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::

19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

2 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::

19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

3 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::

19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Karan Rukhana, Ms. Ish
Jain, Mr. Shanay Shah, Mr. Duj Jain, Mr. Pratyash Gupta, Mr. Soham
Bhagwat & Mr. Shukla i/b. Kiran Jain & Co. for the Applicants/Plaintiffs.
Mr. Vijendra Jabra i/b. Mr. Pranay Singh a/w Mr. S. Marne for
Defendant No.2.
Mr. Shailesh Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sandeep Bhagwat,
Mr. Ameen Rajbakker & Mr. Raj Kamal Chauhan i/b. Chitnis Vaithy & Co.
for Defendant Nos.4 & 5.
_____________________________________________________

CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
th
DATE : 4 MAY 2026
4 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::

19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

JUDGMENT:
1. This application is filed by the applicants who are also plaintiffs in
Suit No.642 of 2015 (2015 Suit). The applicant is referred in the present
order as “Meteor”.
2. Suit No.2519 of 2008 (2008 Suit) is filed by M/s. Venus Habitat
and is referred to as “Venus” in the present order.
3. The present application is filed for consolidation of the above two
Suits namely, 2015 Suit and 2008 Suit.
NATURE OF 2008 SUIT
4. 2008 Suit is filed by Venus against various defendants for a
declaration of ownership and for handing over possession of suit
property at Village Juhu, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai. The present
applicants are not the parties to the 2008 Suit. Evidence in 2008 Suit is
completed and the suit is listed for hearing. The reason for filing this
Suit was that the defendants therein were holding out themselves as
owners of the suit property.
NATURE OF 2015 SUIT
5. 2015 Suit is filed by Meteor against various defendants including
Venus for a declaration of ownership and possession of same suit
property as that of 2008 Suit, namely property at Village Juhu, Taluka
Andheri, Mumbai. Except for defendant no.1 in 2015 Suit, all other
defendants in 2015 Suit are also parties in 2008 Suit. Plaintiffs in 2008
Suit are defendant nos.4 and 5 /5 (a) in 2015 Suit. Evidence in 2015
Suit has not begun but on 31 January 2019 Suit against all defendants,
except defendant nos.4 and 5, is transferred to list of undefended suits.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT-METEOR
6. Mr. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel for the applicants
5 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::

19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

submits that the main prayer clause in 2015 Suit filed by Meteor is for a
direction that Meteor may be declared as sole and absolute owner of the
suit property viz., plot of land bearing Survey No.39, Hissa No.1, C.T.S.
No.507, admeasuring 3040 sq. mtr. at Village Juhu, Taluka Andheri,
Mumbai and further for a declaration that sale deed dated 23 July 1985
with respect to the said suit property is lawful, valid, subsisting and
binding upon the defendants and further for a declaration that Meteor is
in lawful possession of the suit property. In the 2015 Suit, Venus has
been impleaded as defendant No.4 and Tanveer Merchant as defendant
No.5 and 5(a). These defendants are plaintiffs in the 2008 Suit, but
present applicants- Meteor is not a party to 2008 Suit, though on 1 April
2015, the proceedings of 2015 Suit were served on Venus.
7. Learned senior counsel thereafter relied upon the prayers in 2008
Suit, which deals with the same property which is described above and
interalia for a declaration that the plaintiffs therein be declared as
owners of the suit property and further possession be handed over to
them.
8. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, relied upon paragraphs 6 to 9
of 2008 Suit and submitted that the cause of action of 2008 Suit deals
with the same property which was purchased by Merchant, Doshi and
Bafna from Allams by documents dated 10 January 1989, 21 March
1989, 31 March 1989 and 28 March 1989 and thereafter was
transferred to the firm “Venus” by Merchant, Doshi and Bafna as
partners. There was further reconstitution of the firm on account of
retirement and admission of the partners.
9. Learned senior counsel compared the cause of action of 2008 Suit
with the cause of action of 2015 Suit and submitted the same is with
respect to the same property under a registered document dated 23 July
6 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::

19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

1985 executed by Allams. He further submitted that applicants are in
possession of the suit property. Allams are common parties in all the
above documents.
10. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, relied upon the following
decisions which lays down the guidelines/parameters for considering the
application for consolidation/transfer of suit from one Court to another.
1
i. Chitivalasa Jute Mills vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement ,
ii. Kulwinder Kaur Alias Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh vs. Kandi
2
Friends Education Trust & Ors.
3
iii. Prem Lala Nahata and Anr. vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria,
iv. Gurdeepsingh s/o Gopalsingh Bagga & Ors. vs.
4
Gurucharansingh s/o Gopalsingh Bagga & Ors.
5
v. S. C. Jain vs. Bindeshwari Devi,
11. On a query raised by this Court, as to why the applicants filed
the suit in 2015, learned senior counsel brought to my attention
paragraphs 19, 30, 31 of 2015 Suit and contended that it was only
after they discovered the fraud and after obtaining certified copies in
2015, that the suit came to be filed.
12. Learned senior counsel, thereafter, submitted that issues in
2008 Suit were framed on 7 February 2014. Affidavit in evidence of
PW-1 was filed on 13 August 2014. Documents in the 2008 Suit
were marked on 13 October 2014, consent terms between the
plaintiffs and defendant No.3 and defendant No.11 were filed on 28
November 2016 ( which was after the 2015 Suit was served on Venus
on 1 April 2015). The evidence-in-chief of PW-1 was closed on 27
1
(2004) 3 SCC 85
2
(2008) 3 SCC 659
3
(2007) 2 SCC 551
4
2014 (3) Mh. L. J. 935
5
1997 (42) DRJ 239
7 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::

19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

January 2020 and consent terms between defendant no.1 and
plaintiffs in 2008 Suit was filed on 25 September 2025. He
submitted that 2008 Suit is a collusive suit filed by the parties based
on the above dates and events.
13. Learned counsel submitted that insofar as 2015 Suit is
concerned, defendant Nos.4 and 5 are also plaintiffs in 2008 Suit
and these are the only parties who are contesting in 2015 Suit and
therefore, the suit is substantially between the same parties.
14. He further, fairly, admits that there is a delay of around 10
years after the suit having been filed in 2015 in taking out the
present consolidation application and for which the Court can put
the applicants to terms and conditions and no justification is pleaded
for such a delay in the present application.
15. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the Court can
direct the applicants and plaintiffs in 2015 Suit for expediting the
framing of issues, evidence etc. so that both the suits can be heard
together. He further submitted that Venus should have taken
appropriate steps for making Meteor a party in 2008 Suit after the
suit was served on Venus on 1 April 2015.
16. In view of above, he submitted that since the contesting
parties are substantially same, the suit properties are same and final
and effective order in 2008 Suit cannot be passed without there
being consolidation of 2015 Suit, therefore, by relying upon the
above decisions he prayed that the Interim Application be allowed.
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 “VENUS”
17. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Shah submitted that cause of action
in 2008 Suit and 2015 Suit are different and even the transactions are
8 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::

19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

different. In 2008 Suit, the cause of action arises out of
impersonification by defendants therein claiming to be the owner of the
property, whereas the cause of action in 2015 is the allegation of being
collusive. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the test of
“mirror image” relevant for the purpose of consolidation fails in the
present case.
18. Learned senior counsel, further submitted that discretion under
Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 should not be exercised in
the present case, since the application has been filed after a delay of 10
years from the date of filing the suit without any explanation for the
delay. This conduct deprives the applicants for seeking any relief from
this Court.
19. The learned senior counsel, thereafter, distinguished the
judgments relied upon by the applicants on the ground that in those
cases the applications were filed within less than three years and the
transactions were same or interlinked. He submitted that the facts in the
2008 Suit and 2015 Suit are different and the application has been filed
after 10 years and therefore these judgments are not applicable.
20. Learned senior counsel, has also taken me through various dates
and events of 2008 Suit to contend that the cause of action and the
transaction in both the suits are different.
21. Learned senior counsel, therefore, vehemently opposed and
prayed for dismissal of the Interim Application.
SUBMISSIONS OF DEFENDANT NO.2-KIRAN MISHRA
22. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel submitted that though by order dated
31 January 2019, suit against defendant No.2 is transferred to the list of
undefended suits, since the present proceedings have been served on
9 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::

19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

him he should be entitled to make his submissions.
23. Learned counsel submits that the applicants did not make any
application for impleadment in 2008 Suit and, therefore, to overcome
limitation the present suit and the interim application have been filed.
He further submitted that the cause of action is different in both the
suits. Evidence, issues, documents etc. will be different in both the suits
and, therefore, the order of consolidation should not be passed. He
further submitted that a decree binds the parties to the proceedings and
not to third party and in the instant case, the applicants are not parties
to 2008 Suit and therefore any decree passed therein will not bind the
applicants in 2015 Suit. In any case, the applicants can always challenge
the order passed in 2008 Suit in appeal by taking leave of the Court to
challenge the same on the ground that they were not parties. He,
therefore, prayed for dismissal of the interim application.
REJOINDER OF THE APPLICANT-METEOR
24. Mr. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel submits that cause of
action is a bundle of events and in this case Allams are common persons
in both the suits from whom the respective plaintiffs have purchased the
property. He further submitted that the case as pleaded in 2015 Suit is
collusion amongst the defendants, whereas it is the case of the plaintiffs
in 2008 Suit that the documents of the plaintiffs in 2015 Suit are
fabricated. He, therefore, submitted that in that sense both the suits are
interlinked.
25. Learned counsel further submitted that in both the suits there is a
prayer of respective plaintiffs to be declared as owners with respect to
the same property and since the findings on ownership would be in rem,
it would be in the interest of justice that the consolidation application
should be allowed.
10 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::

19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

26. Learned senior counsel, further submitted that the possibility of
contradictory decrees being passed in both the suits, if the consolidation
is not allowed, cannot be ruled out. He further submitted that the test of
mirror image is not a straight jacket formula and there could be various
other factors which the Court can consider for consolidation or for
laying down any procedure by which the suits can be heard together to
avoid any conflicting decrees.
27. Learned senior counsel, further, submitted that if according to the
plaintiff in 2008 Suit, the cause of action was that of an impersonator
then when 2015 Suit was served whereby the applicants were claiming
ownership rights then it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs in 2008 Suit
to make an appropriate application to implead the present applicant,
which they have failed to do.
28. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the applicants can be
put to terms so that the evidence can be completed within reasonable
time and both the suits can be heard together to avoid any conflict.
29. I have heard Mr. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel for the
applicant, Mr. Shailesh Shah, learned senior counsel for respondent
Nos.4 and 5 and Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for defendant No.2.
30. At the outset, the parties agree that this Court will have to look at
2008 Suit papers and proceedings for adjudicating the present
application taken out in 2015 Suit though Suit of 2008 does not pertain
to the roster of the present Court.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS:
31. At the outset, the applicants filed 2015 Suit for a prayer to be
declared as owners with respect to the suit property in the year 2015.
11 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::

19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

Thereafter, no steps were taken for consolidation of the 2015 Suit with
2008 Suit, though they were aware of the same. In the application also,
there is no reason given for the delay of more than 10 years in filing the
present application. The applicant is a company engaged in the business
of development of real estate and ought to have been vigilant and
should have taken steps quickly after filing the 2015 Suit for either
impleadment in the 2008 Suit or should have filed the present
application in 2015 itself. This conduct of the applicant cannot be
approved. There is no justification for such a long delay of 10 years,
irrespective of whether there is any time limit, for filing such an
application, provided under the Limitation Act or not. Even if there is no
time limit, it has to be within reasonable time and this belated
application does not pass the test of having been filed within reasonable
time and moreso without any explanation for such a long delay. A
litigant requesting the Court to exercise its inherent powers should have
conducted itself in a more vigilant manner, than the conduct which is
evident from the facts of the present application.
32. The 2015 Suit was served on the plaintiffs of 2008 Suit
(defendant nos.4 and 5/5(a) in 2015 Suit) on 1 April 2015. The 2015
Suit specifically prayed for a declaration of ownership with regard to
same suit property as that of 2008 Suit. If it is the case made out in
2008 Suit that the suit was filed for restraining impersonators who
were claiming to be owners, then the plaintiffs in 2008 Suit (defendant
nos.4 and 5/5(a) in 2015 Suit) should have also been more vigilant and
should have taken immediate steps for impleading the present
applicants as a party defendant in 2008 Suit. There is no reason given
by the plaintiffs of 2008 Suit as to why they did not take out any
appropriate application for impleadment of the present applicants, when
the applicants had served the 2015 Suit claiming ownership rights of the
12 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::

19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

same suit property. It is important to note that post service of 2015 Suit
i.e. on 1 April 2015, 2008 Suit had come up on the board on various
occasions, when the consent terms were filed, evidence-in-chief was
tendered, evidence was led etc., but the plaintiffs in 2008 Suit did not
inform the Court about the 2015 Suit having been served on them
wherein a claim is made by the applicants herein to be declared as
owners with respect to the same property which was the subject suit
property of 2008 Suit. On a query being raised, learned senior counsel,
Mr. Shah fairly admitted that this was never pointed out to the Court. In
my view, the plaintiffs in 2008 Suit should have been fair and were duty
bound to the Court and should have brought to the notice of the Court
that the applicants have filed 2015 Suit for an identical relief. Therefore,
in my view, even the conduct of the plaintiffs in 2008 Suit (defendant
nos.4 and 5/5(a) in 2015 Suit) is not appreciable.
33. Both the contesting parties i.e. respective plaintiffs in 2008 Suit
and 2015 Suit have not conducted themselves fairly before the Court.
Having commented upon the conduct of both the parties, I now propose
to analyse whether 2008 Suit and 2015 Suit can be consolidated or can
be heard together.
34. The main prayer in 2008 Suit and 2015 Suit of the respective
plaintiffs is for a declaration to declare themselves respectively as
owners of the suit property. There is no dispute between both the parties
that the suit property in both the suits is same. The contention of Mr.
Shah that 2008 Suit is claiming ownership only qua the impersonator is
not correct. The legal right of ownership is a right-in-rem and, therefore,
when the prayer clause (a) in 2008 Suit is not qualified for a declaration
of ownership qua only the impersonator, then it cannot be accepted that
the prayer for ownership is restricted only qua the impersonator. The
13 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::

19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

prayer as set out is a general prayer to be declared as owners of the suit
property, which declaration would be a declaration in rem though
applicants herein may not be a party to the 2008 Suit.
35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Agarwal
6
versus Meenakshi Sadhu & Ors. , in paragraph 19 has observed that
ownership consist of a complex rights, all of which are rights in rem,
being enforceable against the world and not merely against specific
persons. Therefore, in both the present suits where the declaration of
ownership is prayed, it will amount to determination by the Court of
rights in rem of the respective plaintiffs.
36. The contention of Mr. Shah that the cause of action for filing 2008
Suit was impersonation by the defendants therein and when 2015 Suit
was served on them and in that suit the applicants herein made a prayer
for a declaration of ownership with respect to the same property, then it
was incumbent upon the plaintiffs in 2008 Suit to make the applicants
herein as a party defendants in 2008 Suit since as per 2015 Suit, the
applicants were also claiming ownership with respect to the same
property. Therefore, though it is upon the plaintiff to decide whom he
wants to make party to the suit, but if a claim of ownership is made in
rem as observed by me above and 2015 Suit has been served then, in my
view, it was necessary for the plaintiffs in 2008 Suit to make the
applicants, a proper party, if not a necessary party. In the instant case as
observed by me, plaintiffs in 2008 suit have not even informed the Court
about 2015 Suit at any point of time.
37. The defendants in 2015 Suit are same as defendants as that in
2008 Suit except that in 2008 Suit, the applicants herein are not made
party defendants, but the plaintiffs in 2008 Suit have been made
6
(2019) 2 SCC 241
14 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::

19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

defendant nos.4 and 5 in 2015 Suit. Also, defendant no.1 in 2015 Suit is
not a party in 2008 Suit. As observed above, the suit property of which a
declaration is sought of ownership by both the plaintiffs in their
respective suit is of the same plot of land bearing Survey No.39, Hissa
No.1, C.T.S. No.507, admeasuring 3040 square meters at village Juhu,
Taluka Andheri, Mumbai and contesting parties in both the suits are
substantially same. Therefore, to this extent certainly there is
commonality between the two suits.
38. Both the plaintiffs in their respective suits have claimed that they
have purchased the suit property from Allams and both the plaintiffs
have pleaded that their respective agreements are registered though at
different points of time. Therefore, for deciding the ownership of the
plaintiffs in their respective suits, Allams are a common link between the
two suits.
39. The real contesting parties as of now, at this stage is Meteor and
Venus only qua the suit property.
40. Evidence in 2008 Suit is completed and the matter is ripe for final
hearing. However, evidence in 2015 Suit has not yet commenced. Even
the issues have not been framed. In my view and looking at the plaint
of both the suits, the documents and the evidence would not be
identical, though there may be to some extent some overlapping.
Furthermore, 2008 Suit is based on allegation of impersonification
whereas, 2015 Suit is based on collusion between the plaintiffs and
defendants in 2008 Suit. Therefore, in my view, it would not be proper
to consolidate these two suits on these facts.
41. The plaintiffs in 2008 Suit have also claimed possession of the suit
property whereas, the plaintiffs in 2015 Suit have sought for a
declaration that they are in legal and lawful possession of the suit
15 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::

19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

property. If relief of possession in 2008 Suit is to be granted, then
certainly prayer made in 2015 Suit that the plaintiffs therein are in valid
possession will have to be considered. Therefore, 2008 Suit cannot be
effectively decided without hearing 2015 Suit along with 2008 Suit. To
that extent, certainly there would be interlinkage between the two suits.
42. In both the suits, respective plaintiffs have claimed a declaration
of ownership with respect to the same suit property. Such a declaration
in 2008 Suit is not qua impersonators only. The declaration of
ownership would be a right in rem. There is every possibility that if both
the suits are not heard together, then there could be contradictory
decrees. It is possible that the Court may grant decree in terms of prayer
clause (a) in 2008 Suit which deals with ownership and it is also
possible that another Court while hearing 2015 Suit also may grant
prayer clause (a) of 2015 Suit which deals with ownership. If such
decrees are passed, then it would lead to a situation that with respect to
the same property, two different Courts have declared two different
persons as owners. It would, thereafter, be difficult to reconcile these
two contradictory decrees. It is also possible that if 2008 Suit is decreed
in terms of prayer clause (a), third party interest may be created by the
plaintiffs in 2008 Suit and thereafter, 2015 Suit is decreed again in
terms of prayer clause (a), then the repercussion would be multiplicity
of future proceedings arising out of conflicting decrees involving various
innocent parties and this Court do face multiple sale instances of same
property day in and day out.
43. In my view, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to
avoid such contradictory decrees being passed and to prevent
multiplicity of proceedings that 2015 Suit must be heard alongside 2008
Suit.
16 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::

19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

44. While deciding the above course of action, I have kept in my
mind, the provisions of section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
It is a procedural provision which enables a party to have the
proceedings of a pending suit so conducted in a manner that is
consistent with justice and equity. The Court under section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure may adopt any procedure to attain justice,
unless the same is expressly prohibited. In the instant case, though
consolidation of suit cannot be granted, but certainly for ensuring
consistency, equity, justice and avoiding future multiplicity of litigation,
the most appropriate course of action would be to hear both the suits
together.
45. It would also be in the interest of the plaintiffs in 2008 Suit
(defendant nos.4 and 5/5(a) in 2015 Suit) that both the suits be heard
together since even if they succeed in 2008 Suit, their titles to the
ownership of the suit property will still be subject to the outcome of
2015 Suit wherein they are parties and in which the prayer sought by
plaintiffs in 2015 Suit again relates to the ownership. Also, plaintiffs in
2008 Suit have prayed for possession which as per plaintiffs in 2015 Suit
is with them. Therefore even from this angle, it would be in the interest
of justice that these two suits should be heard together.
46. The evidence in 2008 Suit is complete whereas in 2015 Suit, the
evidence has still not commenced but the evidence and other
proceedings of 2015 Suit can be expedited so as to match and reach the
stage at which 2008 Suit stands today. In my view, if certain directions
are given to frame the issues and complete the evidence within certain
reasonable period, then both the suits can reach at the same stage
within reasonable time and after which they can be heard together
without consolidation. This may delay the hearing of 2008 Suit, which is
presently listed for hearing but could not be taken up as the matter had
17 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::

19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

not reached. However, no prejudice would be caused and has been
shown by Venus if 2015 Suit proceedings can be expedited to bring it to
the same stage as that of the 2008 Suit and both Suits are heard
together. There are many suits filed even before 2008 Suit which are
ripped for hearing. On the contrary, if this course of action is adopted,
then there would be effective disposal of both the suits as observed by
me above.
47. To achieve this objective, the parties of 2015 Suit should
cooperate with each other so that within a short period of time, the
evidence can be completed and closed. Applicants have rested for 10
years and therefore should work on a war footing to match the level of
2008 Suit. I am not providing for consequences of non-completion of
evidence by 31 December 2026 since I am confident that both the
parties would respect the present order in letter and spirit.
48. The decisions relied upon by the applicants are not being
discussed in the present order since the facts of the present case are
different than that of the facts before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
the High Court. The guidelines laid down by these judgments do not
strictly apply in all respects to the present facts. Therefore, these
judgments are not being discussed.
49. Based on the above analysis, I am of the view that though the
application for consolidation of both the suits on the facts of the present
case cannot be considered, however for the reasons mentioned above,
2015 Suit should be heard alongwith 2008 Suit.
50. Before parting, in this case, certainly and rightly the "mirror test”
propounded by Mr. Shah, learned Senior counsel is not satisfied in the
facts of the present case. However, the court cannot ignore the fact that
there is only one mirror and two persons want to stand in front of that
one mirror. Therefore, this Court, is of the view that in the interest of
18 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::

19-IA.8592.2026.doc
rsk

justice and equity, the Court should hear both the persons in succession
so that the Court can decide who is the right person to stand in front of
the mirror. The appropriate course of action would therefore be to
permit the hearing of 2015 Suit alongside 2008 Suit. This course of
action would be the most effective way of passing decree in both the
suits.
51. I, therefore, propose to pass the following order :-
(i) Prayer for consolidation of the suit is rejected;
(ii) Proceedings of 2015 Suit relating to framing of issues,
documents and evidence etc. to be expedited and completed on or
before 31 December 2026. All the parties in the 2015 Suit should
cooperate to achieve the said deadline;
(iii) After achieving the above deadline, 2015 Suit can be heard
with 2008 Suit.
52. It is made clear that I have not expressed any views on the merits
of both the suits and have discussed both the suits for the limited
purpose of deciding the present application only.
53. Interim Application (L) No.8592 of 2026 is disposed of in above
terms.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
19 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2026 17:03:50 :::