Court Allows Appeal, Emphasizes Expedited Disposal & Maintains Consolidation Order.

The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of the suits. The judgment clarified the status of the parties post-consolidation, maintaining the order of consolidation dated 8.12.2007. The court highlighted oversight in previous orders and directed prompt resolution of pending suits within a month, without imposing costs. The issue of recalling under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC was not addressed in the judgment despite arguments presented by the appellant's counsel.

---

---

Issues:
Consolidation of suits, opportunity for cross-examination post-consolidation, interpretation of court orders regarding evidence, recall under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two suits filed by different parties and consolidated by the court. The respondents filed Civil Suit No. 43 of 2009 seeking declaration and injunction, while the appellant filed Civil Suit No. 44 of 2009 seeking permanent injunction for the same property. The respondents requested to discharge the statement of PW-1 and examine the witness afresh post-consolidation, citing the court's order on conducting trials commonly and reading evidence in both cases. The application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC aimed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of PW-1 after consolidation.

The Additional District Judge rejected the suit against Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 in Civil Suit No. 43 of 2009, who were parties in Civil Suit No. 44 of 2009. The key issue raised was whether the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 43 of 2009 should have the chance to cross-examine Defendant No. 5 post-consolidation. The court clarified the status of the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 44 of 2009, noting that the past evidence recorded would be treated as the main suit, maintaining the order of consolidation dated 8.12.2007.

The judgment highlighted that crucial aspects were overlooked by the trial court and the High Court in their orders. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of the suits. The judgment did not delve into other contentions regarding the permissibility of recalling under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, despite arguments presented by the appellant's counsel. The directive was to ensure the prompt resolution of the pending suits within a month from the date of the order, without imposing any costs.

---