S.P.PANDEY,J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act ( here in after referred to as the Act) preferred against the judg­ment and order dated 18-6-1997 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of an order dated 12-2-1997 passed by the learned trial Court on an application dated 14-6-96 moved on behalf of the plaintiffs for consolidation of the two suits filed by them under Section229-B of the Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that plaintiff instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act against the defen­dants, Jamin and others for declaration of their rights. During the proceedings of the case, an application dated 14-6-1996 was moved on behalf of the plaintiffs with the prayer that both the suits, Salamat and others v. Har Dayal and others and and Salamat and others v. Ibrahim be con­solidated. The learned trial Court rejected this application on 12-2-1997. Aggrieved by this order a revision petition was preferred. The learned Additional Com­missioner has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dis­missed the revision on 18-6-1997. Hence this second revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. For the revisionist, it was contended that the question involved in the two suits were substantially the same and arose out of one and the same cause of action and as such the order of rejection of consolidation of the two suits passed by the learned trial Court is illegal and deserves to be set aside ; that the learned Courts below have not properly examined the facts and circumstances of the instant case and have rejected the application of the revisionist as to the consolidation of the two suits ; that in the circumstances, the aforesaid order passed by the learned Courts below should be set aside and the revision petition be allowed. In reply the learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no ground for consolidation of the aforesaid two suits as the parties and the plots in suits are different and as such the learned Courts below have rightly dismissed the claim of the revisionist.
(3.) I have carefully and closely ex­amined the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the records, it is crystal clear that the parties and the plots in suit are different in the aforesaid two suits and as such there is no justification for consolidation of the aforementioned suits. The learned lower revisional Court has examined the points at issue in correct perspective of law and has rightly held that there is no valid ground for the consolidation of the aforesaid suits. I entirely agree with the conclusion drawn by the learned lower revisional Court in its order dated 18-6-1997. No error of fact law or jurisdiction has been committed by the learned Addi­tional Commissioner so as to warrant any interference by this Court at this second revisional stage. Having closely examined the matter in question, I find that the or­ders passed by the learned Courts below are quite sustainable, well-founded and wholly warranted in law and as such the concurrent finding recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be upset with out ATany reasonable and valid ground.;