Appeals concerning the same property should be consolidated to prevent conflicting decisions.

The respondents obtained a decree of permanent injunction in O.S. No. 16/2004, which the First Appellate Court affirmed in R.A. No. 61/2009. The defendants challenged that appellate judgment in this second appeal.

A separate suit, O.S. No. 21/2003, brought by the appellants against Abdul Khayum and others concerning the same property, was partly decreed by ordering repayment of an advance but rejecting specific performance. The appellants’ appeal against the rejection of specific performance, R.A. No. 19/2014, was pending before the same First Appellate Court.

The parties jointly requested that R.A. No. 61/2009 be remitted and heard together with the pending appeal to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions.

1. Whether the courts below were justified in granting permanent injunction despite the appellants’ challenges concerning the respondents’ title and the effect of an earlier agreement of sale

2. Whether the First Appellate Court had followed the procedure contemplated by Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure

3. Whether, in light of the related appeal concerning the same property and the parties’ joint request, R.A. No. 61/2009 should be remitted for joint hearing and disposal with R.A. No. 19/2014

The appeal was brought under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the High Court had framed substantial questions of law, including one concerning Order XLI Rule 31 CPC.

The judgment does not decide the substantive legal rules governing injunctions, proof of title, or compliance with Order XLI Rule 31. Instead, it relies on the procedural consideration that related appeals concerning the same property and involving the parties may be heard together to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and the risk of conflicting orders.

The Court did not determine the framed substantial questions on their merits. It relied on the undisputed pendency of R.A. No. 19/2014 before the same First Appellate Court, the parties’ participation in both proceedings, their connection to the same suit property, and their joint request for consolidation.

In those circumstances, the Court considered remittal and joint disposal appropriate, leaving all rival contentions open and expressing no opinion on them.

R.A. No. 61/2009 was remitted to the First Appellate Court to be clubbed, heard, and disposed of with R.A. No. 19/2014 in accordance with law; all contentions were left open.

The order’s final direction refers once to “R.A. No. 19/2024,” although the preceding directions and the judgment identify the pending appeal as R.A. No. 19/2014.