Mr. Navare submitted that Pratap Reddy had also filed a suit for declaration and possession being O.S. No.190/1985. All 3 suits were clubbed together and heard together. However,

(i) consolidation of 3 suits does not convert 3 suits into one action

(ii) Consolidation of suits is for practical reasons such as, saving costs, time and efforts of the parties, convenience of the parties, avoiding repetitive exercises in 3 suits and avoiding conflict of judgment in the 3 suits. However, the 3 suits consolidated / clubbed together retain their separate identity.

In support of his argument Mr. Navare cited Mahalaxmi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. v. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel (D) thr. Lrs. and Ors.(2013) 4 SCC 404 [41] {Para 49}

50. Mr. Navare emphatically argued that the right which have accrued to Pratap Reddy, as a result of defective suits filed by the Vendee, cannot stand abrogated by consolidation of the suits. There is no provision in the CPC which permits a party to be deprived of such accrued, right because of defects in the suit.

It is true that, the clubbing of suits for hearing them together and disposal thereof by a common judgment and order is for practical reasons. Such clubbing together of the suits do not convert the suits into one action as argued by Mr. Navare. The suits retain their separate identity as held in Mahalaxmi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. v. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel (supra). The clubbing together is done for convenience, inter alia, to save time, costs, repetition of procedures and to avoid conflicting judgments.