JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment/order.
(2.) THE plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit before the learned trial court against the defendant-respondents alleging that his mother Mst. Kanchan Devi owned the suit-house and since she had gone to Calcutta in connection with some treatment, he filed the suit. He claimed that he was in possession of the suit house. He complained that the respondent started raising construction and caused damage to the house of the plaintiffs mother. THE defendants were trying to raise construction without obtaining permission from the Municipal Council, Bikaner. THE defendants also threatened to undertake the construction for a plat-form and thereby infringe the right of the plaintiff and his mother. It may also be mentioned that Mst. Kanchan Devi also filed a suit on the basis of the above averments against the defendants and both the suits are pending in the learned lower court. The suit filed by the petitioner bears No. 143 of 1995 whereas the suit filed by Mst. Kanchan Devi bears No. 361 of 1995. An application was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner purporting to be under s. 151 C. P. C. before the learned trial court seeking consolidation of both the suits on the ground that the subject matter involved in both the suits was similar and the parties were also identical. The learned trial court rejected the application primarily on the ground that in the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner, the plaintiff has no locus standi to bring that suit and that matter is not in the other suit and hence both the suits were not identical and no consolidation was permitted. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the plaintiff filed the above suit on the strength of his possession though the house was owned by his mother. The other suit has been brought by his mother. The averments made in both the plaints are identical and the same issues are to be tried and, therefore, it will be in the interest of justice that both the suits may be consolidated so that the trial may proceed expeditiously. On the other hand, Mr. Babulal Khatri, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents opposed the application on the ground that admittedly the parties are different and locus standi of the plaintiff to bring the suit against the defendants has been challenged and that point has still to be decided. In this connection, reliance was placed on Pratap Singh vs. Madan Lal & Anr. (l ). I have considered the rival contentions. In State of Raj. vs. Motiram (2), a learned single Judge of this Court observed that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides no specific provision for consolidation of the suits. It is under the inherent powers of the court under s. 151 C. P. C. that the suits are consolidated. The whole object behind consolidation of suits is to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and to prevent delay and avoid unnecessary costs and expenses. In the instant case, the parties are not identical. The petitioner filed a separate suit on behalf of his mother as there was emergency and his mother was at Calcutta. He claimed possession but he specifically stated that the suit house is of his mother. His mother Mst. Kanchan Devi also brought a suit and hence, there is a serious challenge regarding maintainability of the suit filed by the petitioner-appellant. Even the parties are not identical. In Pratapsingh's case (supra) it was observed the certain conditions have to be fulfilled for consolidation of the suits ana those conditions are mentioned in that Judgment. The one of the conditions is that the parties must be identical and the rights to be determined must have also been identical. These conditions are not fulfilled here. I, therefore, find no substance in this revision and it is hereby dismissed summarily. . ;