ORDER
S.C. Mahapatra, J.
1. This civil revision arises out of an order refusing prayer of defendant No. 1 to hear two suits analogously.
2. Title Suit No. 161 of 1987 has been filed by opposite party No. 3 for declaration that petitioner is not the adopted son of Panchanan and for partition. Petitioner filed a written statement in the said suit claiming to be adopted son of Panchanan. In the written statement opposite party No. 1 has claimed that petitioner is not the adopted son and they are continuing in possession on the basis of succession.
3. Opposite Party No. 1 filed an application for stay of hearing of Title Suit No.1 of 1989 under Section 10, Civil Procedure Code. Petitioner filed an application for analogous hearing of both suits. Both applications were heard together and in a common order, application for stay of latter suit has been allowed and application for analogous hearing of both suits has been rejected. This is grievance of petitioner.
4. There is no dispute that issue of adoption of petitioner is common in both suits and result of each suit depends upon finding on this issue. All the three requirements for stay of suit i.e.:–
(i) Matter in issue is directly and substantially same in both suits;
(ii) in both suits, parties are the same; and
(iii) both suits are pending in the same Court which is competent to grant relief in the subsequent suit;
are satisfied. In case, the only application would have been for stay of suit, trial Court would have no discretion to refuse the same in view of clear language of Section 10 C.P.C. which is mandatory in nature.
5. In this-case, however, two applications were rightly being considered together. In case, both the suits would have been in two Courts having different pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction, Section 10 C.P.C., which is a substantive procedural provision would have prevailed since one Court of lesser pecuniary jurisdiction in exercise of inherent jurisdiction would not have been able to call for the suit from another Court of higher pecuniary jurisdiction for consolidated hearing analogously. Where both the suits are in the same Court, public policy of early finality would call for exercise of inherent power under Section 151 C.P.C., to direct analogous hearing. In acase reported in (1984) 57 CLT477 : (AIR 1984 Ori 209) (Dr. Guru Prasad Mohanty v. Bijay Kumar) exercise of inherent power by a Court of higher pecuniary jurisdiction for consolidation of the suit before it with the suit pending in a Court of lesser pecuniary jurisdiction was upheld. It was observed :–
“……After all, Section 10 Civil Procedure Code merely lays down a procedure and does not vest any substantive right in the parties. The object of the said section is to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause of action, the same subject matter and the same relief. The policy of the law is to obviate ‘the possibility of two contradictory verdicts by one and the same Court in respect of the same relief. The object of consolidation of suits is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary delay and protection of litigation. These objects are not in conflict with the principles of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, but in the aid of the object of the said section.”
Therefore, I am inclined to hold that both! suits should be tried together.
6. This prayer could have been made much earlier. As a result of delay, one suit has become ready for hearing and the latter suit would take some more time to be ready for hering since issues have not been settled although draft issues have been filed by the defendants. In that view of the matter, I direct that petitoner shall pay a cost of Rs. 500/-(five hundred) to the opposite party No. 1 to. mitigate grievance of prolonged litigation within one month from today, failing which Title Suit No. 161 of 1987 shall be heard and Title Suit No. 1 of 1989 shall remain stayed till disposal of Title Suit No. 161 of 1987.
7. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner has made it clear before me that petitioner would not create any obstruction for making the latter suit ready for hearing. Thus, apprehension of Mr. P.K. Misra, learned counsel for opposite party that the petitioner may adopt means to delay disposal of the suit is removed. Therefore, I direct that trial Court shall not permit any amendment of pleading by the petitioner and in case application for adjournment is filed by the petitioner the same shall be considered strictly so that both the suits can be expeditiously disposed of
8. Before concluding, I may state that petitioner claims to be adopted son. Accordingly, onus lies on him to prove adoption. Therefore, he shall begin the suits, whereafter opposite parties shall be called upon to adduce evidence.
9. In the result, civil revision is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.