The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that civil suits may be consolidated only when the issues involved in the suits are similar, and the common evidence is sufficient to decide those issues. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 379]

Dismissing a revision petition challenging the order that rejected the plea for consolidation, the bench of Justice Ashish Shroti observed:

"Thus two suits can be, and should be, consolidated when the issues involved are similar, if not same, and the common evidence recorded for both suits and the common arguments will be sufficient to decide the suits. As observed above, the issues involved in both the suits, in the case in hand, are different. The evidence to be recorded therein, would also be different inasmuch as in one case, the evidence would be about partition of family properties and in other suit(s) the evidence would be of liquidation of firm and for rendition of its accounts. Therefore, the requirements for consolidation of suits is not met".

The applicant had filed a revision petition challenging the order of July 23, 2026 by the Principal Judge of Gwalior. The Principal Judge had declined the application for consolidation of Civil Suits No. 7A/18 and 701A/17 and try together with civil suit no. 445A/16 pending before the Civil Judge of Junior Division in Gwalior.

The counsel for the applicant submitted that the three civil suits are similar and involve the same property. Thus, the applicant requested that the impugned order be set aside and the application under Section 24 CPC be allowed.

For context, suit 445A pertained to partition of various ancestral family properties and declaration of shares. Whereas the 07A suit was for liquidation and rendition of accounts of Gwalior Ice Factory, and the 701A suit was regarding liquidation and rendition of accounts of Gwalior Ice Factory.

The court noted that while suits 07A and 701A strictly concerned the liquidation and accounts of the same firm, they could be consolidated together, which was already undertaken. However, suit 445A pertained to the partition of multiple family properties. Thus, the cause of action, primary legal remedies, and parties are different than the aforementioned suits.

The bench empahsized, "Learned Principal Judge is justified in observing that if two civil suits pending before the Civil Judge are consolidated with the civil suit pending in the Court of District Judge, the parties before the Civil Judge would lose their right of one appeal. This itself may not be a ground for denying the relief of consolidation, if the subject matter and the relief prayed for are same".

However, in the present case, the court noted that the civil suits involved do not have a similar cause of action or relief prayed. Thus, it would not be proper to deprive some parties of their right to appeal.

Referring to the case of Chitivalasa Jute Mills v Jaypee Rewa Cement [2004 3 SCC 85], the court reiterated that such consolidation can be done if it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings.

Thus, the bench held that the issues in the present suit were not similar and therefore the evidence needed to adjudicate the said civil suits would also be different. Thus, the impugned order was appropriate and needed no interference. Accordingly, the revision was dismissed.

Case Title: Praveen Bhargava v Piyush Bhargava, CR-1059-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 379

For Applicant: Advocate Prashant Singh Kaurav

Click here to read/download the Order