Mumbai, May 4: The Bombay High Court on Monday refused to consolidate two long-pending civil suits over a prime Juhu land parcel, but directed that both matters be heard together to avoid conflicting rulings.
Dispute over Juhu land parcel
Justice Jitendra Jain was hearing an interim application filed by Meteor Estates Pvt Ltd in a 2015 suit, seeking consolidation with an earlier 2008 suit filed by Venus Habitat. Both suits concern the same property — a 3,040 sq m plot at Juhu, Andheri — with rival claims of ownership.
Meteor argued that since both cases involve the same land and substantially the same parties, they should be consolidated to ensure a uniform decision. Its counsel contended that “final and effective order in 2008 suit cannot be passed without consolidation of 2015 suit.”
Opposition and delay in filing plea
Venus Habitat, however, opposed the plea, arguing that the two suits arise from different causes of action. While the 2008 suit alleges impersonation by certain defendants, the 2015 suit is based on allegations of collusion, its counsel submitted, adding that the test for consolidation was not met.
The court noted that there was an unexplained delay of nearly 10 years in seeking consolidation. “There is no justification for such a long delay… this belated application does not pass the test of having been filed within reasonable time,” the court observed, criticising the applicant’s lack of diligence.
Court observations on both parties
At the same time, the judge also found fault with the plaintiffs in the 2008 suit for not informing the court about the later proceedings, despite being served in 2015. Their conduct, too, was termed “not appreciable.”
On merits, the court held that consolidation was not appropriate because the evidence, issues, and causes of action in the two suits were not identical. However, it acknowledged a clear overlap — both parties seek a declaration of ownership over the same property.
Joint hearing ordered to avoid conflict
Highlighting the risk of conflicting judgments, the court said: “There is every possibility… that two different courts have declared two different persons as owners,” which could lead to “multiplicity of future proceedings.”
To avoid such a situation, the court directed that the 2015 suit be expedited and brought to the same stage as the 2008 suit, where evidence is already complete. Both matters will then be heard together.
Also Watch:
Using a metaphor, the court remarked that “there is only one mirror and two persons want to stand in front of that one mirror,” and the court must decide who has the rightful claim.
The application was accordingly disposed of, with directions to complete proceedings in the 2015 suit by December 31, 2026.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
