N.P. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dt. 21.02.1997, dismissing appellant 's writ petition, whereby the appellant had challenged the order of the Board of Revenue Annexure 9 in the writ petition, being dt. 19.10.1993.
(2.) THE brief facts, necessary for the present controversy are, that two suits were filed, one by Bagdawat, the private respondent No. 5, being Suit No. 240/1980, for declaration of his khatedari rights, on the basis of adverse possession, and the other being Suit No. 48/1981, was filed by the petitioner appellant, against Bagdawat, for recovery of possession, on the basis of his having got a sale deed registered, consequent upon a decree for specific performance, in his favour, on 05.11.1980, and thereby claiming title over the land. It may be noticed, that the land in question originally belonged to one Manak, who had entered into an agreement to sale, in favour of Bagdawat on 31.03.1967, and he had also entered into agreement in favour of the petitioner on 15.11.1967, and it was the petitioner, who could get the decree of specific performance of his agreement. We need not go into further facts, as the controversy before us lies to a very narrow compass, inasmuch, the learned trial Court had consolidated both the suits, and decided them by judgment and decree dt. 08.10.1985, whereby the suit of Bagdawat was decreed, and suit of petitioner was dismissed. Against that judgment and decree, the petitioner filed one appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, who by its judgment and decree dt. 16.10.1986 set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, and decreed the suit No. 48/1981, and dismissed the suit No. 240/ 1980. Against that, a second appeal was filed by Bagdawat, before the Board of Revenue, and the sheet anchor was, that since there were two suits which had been decided by the judgment and decree dt. 08.10.1985, two appeals should have been filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority ,while only one appeal was filed, with the result, that the decree in other suit became final, and therefore the learned Revenue Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to set aside the decree, so as to reverse the result in both the suits, and the learned Board of Revenue vide Annexure 9 held, that no doubt, the two suits were consolidated by the trial Court, as the facts and issues in both were similar, but consolidation of the suits however does not mean consolidation of judgment and decree, rather, in fact, consolidation of suits is a facility provided by the Court, so that litigants are not harassed and there is control over the multiplicity of the proceedings. It was also held, that if two identical suits are separately heard, there would be the necessity to obtain double sets of documents, the oral evidence would have to be recorded twice, and so on; while by consolidation, such legal procedures are simplified, and only one set of oral and written evidence would be required to be taken. But then, this does not mean, that the decrees in both the suits would also be a single decree, two separate decrees would have to be issued, especially so, when the prayer, or relief, in both the suits are different. On the basis of the above conclusions, the learned Board of Revenue set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority. With this, the learned Board of Revenue also proceeded to consider the question, as to whether Hardam Singh 's suit was within limitation or not, and then, after embarking upon certain aspects, found the suit to be not within time, and thus, the second appeal filed by the respondent Bagdawat was allowed.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment found, that two different suits can be consolidated, and disposed of by the trial Court by common order, but if a party is aggrieved, then it is necessary that it should file two appeals. Thus, it was found that the Board of Revenue did not commit any error in accepting the revision petition (sic. Second appeal) on the count that Hardam Singh had (sic. should have filed) filed two appeals, and therefore, the learned Revenue Appellate Authority was in clear error in accepting only one appeal. With this, the learned Single Judge, after negativing the contention, seeking to challenge the order of consolidation, also proceeded to embark on the merits also, and purported to concur with the conclusions arrived at by the Board of Revenue.;