- (1.) This order will dispose of S.A.O. Nos. 22 and 29 of 1980, as both of them arise out of the same order of the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, dated March 8,1980.
(2.) Two suits for permanent injunction were filed by Kartar Singh and Nar Singh separately against the Defendant-Appellant Kidar Singh. The said suits were consolidated by the trial Court vide its order dated 27th January, 1976, which reads thus: At this stage it is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the parties that in view of the identical nature of the points at issue and the fact that parties in both the suits are same, these can be disposed of by common evidence. Accordingly suit No. 658 Nar Singh V/s. Kidar Singh is consolidated in other suit No. 657 Kartar Singh V/s. Kidar Singh. The evidence will be recorded in that main suit. The suits have been consolidated to save the time of the Court and to avoid conflicting judgment in the same set of circumstances Consequently, the evidence was recorded in the main suit, i.e. Kartar Singh V/s. Kidar Singh. Ultimately, both the suits were dismissed by the trial Court on merits. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court on the short ground that the two suits should not have been consolidated, as according to the learned Judge, there was nothing common in two suits, except this fact that each of the Plaintiffs claimed that the particular portion in his possession was part of Khasra No 333. It has also been observed by the lower appellate Court that consolidation of the two cases together has caused a great prejudice to both the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the decree of the trial Court has been set aside and the case has been remanded to the trial Court for disposal of the same in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved against this order, the Defendant Kidar Singh has filed these two appeals.
(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the order of remand passed by the learned Additional District Judge is liable to be set aside on the short ground that such a remand is not contemplated under Order 41 Rules 23, 23-A and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The powers of the appellate Court to remand a case are governed by these provisions. No decree could be set aside on the ground that order of consolidation passed by the trial Court on the consent of the parties hat prejudiced the Plaintiffs, particularly, when no such objection was taken in the Grounds of Appeal filed by them in the lower appellate Court. The learned Counsel for the Respondent was unable to support the judgment of the lower appellate Court. Consequently, the order of remand is set aside and it is directed that the appeals be registered on their original numbers and be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties through their learned Counsel have been directed to appear in the Court of the District Judge, Karnal on 8th September, 1980.;