AMIT KUMAR AGRAWALversusSMT. VANDANA RANI AND 3 OTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            CIVIL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 43 of 2026

Amit Kumar Agrawal
                                                              .....Revisionist(s)
                                    Versus
Smt. Vandana Rani And 3 Other
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Dilip Kumar            Goswami,      Prabhakar
                                Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Pankaj Dubey

Court No. - 39
                      HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Along with the supplementary affidavit, a certified copy of the formal
order has already been brought on record. The defect now appears to have
been removed. Accordingly, the office is directed to allot a regular number
to this revision.

2. Heard Mr. H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Prabhakar
Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist/plaintiff, and Mr. Pankaj Dubey,
learned counsel, assisted by Ms. Smriti Singh, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no. 3.

3. The sole question arising in the present revision relates to the order passed
in Transfer Application No. 554 of 2025 (Amit Kumar Agarwal vs. Smt.
Vandana Rani and Others) on 02.09.2025 by the learned District Judge,
Meerut. The revisionist/plaintiff filed an application under Section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure before the District Judge, Meerut, praying that
either Original Suit No. 1280 of 2014, Shri Amit Kumar Agarwal vs. Smt.
Vandana Rani and Others, be transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Meerut, where Original Suit No. 104 of 2008, Shri Amit Kumar
Agarwal vs. Smt. Vandana Rani and Others, is pending for adjudication, or
that Original Suit No. 104 of 2008 be transferred from the Court of Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Meerut, to the Court of Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division) (FTC), Meerut, where Original Suit No. 1280 of 2014 is
pending, so that both suits may be decided together by one and the same
court.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionist/plaintiff submitted
that the revisionist had instituted Original Suit No. 104 of 2008, Shri Amit
Kumar Agarwal vs. Smt. Vandana Rani and Others, claiming ownership
over Plot Nos. 23, 24, and 25, the details whereof are annexed with the plaint
of the said suit. The revisionist/plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner of
Plot Nos. 23 to 26, which were allegedly wrongly sold by Atul Gupta in
                                                           CLRED No. 43 of 2026
                                2

favor of respondent nos. 1 and 2, namely, Vandana Rani and Rajkumar.

5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that during the pendency of the
aforesaid suit, Smt. Vandana Rani executed a sale deed in respect of the
same Plot Nos. 24 and 25 in favor of Kapil Garg, which is hit by the
principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Consequently, Amit Kumar Agarwal filed Original Suit No. 1280 of 2014
challenging the sale deed executed by Smt. Vandana Rani in favour of Kapil
Garg, as the subject matter was already pending in Original Suit No. 104 of
2008. Therefore, an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure was filed before the learned District Judge, Meerut, praying that
both cases be transferred to one court for proper adjudication on merits and
to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 contended that the
application was filed merely for transfer of the suits from one court to
another, as there is no provision for consolidation of the suits.

7. The submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the
revisionist/plaintiff, as well as the reference contained in paragraph 8 of the
impugned order, indicate that "in compliance with the order concerned, a
report dated 29.01.2026 was submitted to the effect that some part of the
disputed property is common in both suits, though there is a difference in the
area involved."

8. The submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the revisionist/plaintiff are
also in consonance with the report submitted by the concerned authority.
Prima facie, it appears that the property in dispute in both suits is
substantially the same, inasmuch as Plot Nos. 23 to 25 are the subject matter
of Original Suit No. 104 of 2008, and during the pendency of the said suit,
defendant no. 1, Smt. Vandana Rani, sold Plot Nos. 24 and 25 in favour of
Kapil Garg, who is defendant no. 2 in Original Suit No. 1280 of 2014. In
view thereof, both suits ought to be decided by one court.

9. It is an undisputed fact that both suits are pending before courts of Senior
Division. Hence, Original Suit Nos. 104 of 2008 and 1280 of 2014 ought to
be decided by one court . Hence O.S. No. 1280 of 2014 is hereby transferred
to Civil Judge Senior Division , and both the Suits shall be decided by Civil
Judge, Senior Division Meerut.

10. As per Order IVA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the said
amendment in Uttar Pradesh provides that:

     "Consolidation of cases — Even where two or more suits or
     proceedings are pending in the same court, and the court is of the
     opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice, it may, by
     order, direct their joint trial, whereupon all the suits and
     proceedings may be decided upon in all or any such suits or
     proceedings."
     (vide U.P. Act No. 57, 1976, Section 5, with effect from 1.1.1977)
                                                                                               CLRED No. 43 of 2026
                                                                    3

                                    11. In view thereof, the application for consolidation has to be decided by
                                    the concerned court where both the original suits are pending and not by any
                                    other court. Whereas both the original suits bearing Nos. 104 of 2008 and
                                    1280 of 2014 have already been transferred to the Court of Civil Judge,
                                    Senior Division, Meerut. Hence, the revisionist/plaintiff may file an
                                    application under Order IVA of the C.P.C., 1908 for the consolidation of
                                    both cases before the learned Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Meerut.
                                    If such an application is filed, it may be decided expeditiously, in accordance
                                    with law, preferably within 30 days from the filing of the said application for
                                    the consolidation of both suits under Order IVA of C.P.C., 1908.

                                    12. With these observations and directions, the present civil revision stands
                                    disposed of finally.
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    M. Tarik
                                                                                               (Abdul Shahid,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad