Consolidation is permissible where suits involve same parties and property despite different underlying claims of right.

The petitioner (Defendant No. 5) challenged a trial court order in RCS No. 958A/2025 which refused to stay proceedings under Section 10 of the CPC.

Two suits were pending between the same parties regarding the same property: the first (RCS No. 19A/2023) sought declaration based on an oral hiba (gift), and the second (RCS No. 958A/2025) challenged revenue partition orders as being contrary to Muslim law.

The petitioner sought a stay of the later suit due to the pendency of the earlier one.

1. Whether the subsequent suit (RCS No. 958A/2025) should be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC on account of the previously instituted suit (RCS No. 19A/2023).

2. Whether, in the interest of justice and to avoid conflicting decisions, the two suits involving the same property and parties should be consolidated.

The court applied Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the stay of suits, noting it applies when the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same.

It further relied on the inherent power of the court to consolidate suits as established in Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria (2007) 2 SCC 551, which held that consolidation saves costs, time, and effort when common questions of law or fact arise.

It also cited Mahalaxmi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel (2013) 4 SCC 404, emphasizing that consolidation prevents multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting trials.

The Court observed that while the parties and property are identical, the legal rights agitated—oral hiba versus erroneous partition—are technically different, meaning the trial court correctly found that Section 10 CPC did not strictly apply.

However, the Court reasoned that a decision in one suit would have a "material bearing" on the outcome of the other.

Given that both suits were in preliminary stages and no evidence had been recorded, the Court determined that separate trials would be inefficient and could lead to inconsistent results.

Exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court found it a fit case to override the refusal of stay by ordering the more efficient remedy of consolidation.

The Principal District Judge was directed to transfer both suits to a single court to be tried together to meet the ends of justice and ensure judicial economy.

The petition was disposed of with these directions.