P L D 2021 Balochistan 59 (PLP)

ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.

The petitioners have invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in view of above submissions, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Kuchlak as well as order dated 15.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Quetta, and dismiss the application for consolidation of suits filed by the respondents Nos.1 to 4, in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay".

2. Facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, possession, mandatory and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants before the learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Kuchlak (hereinafter "the trial court") with the following manners:- "A) To declare that the plaintiffs are owners of the property situated at Mahal Khushkaba Kuchlak, Khasra No.1226, measuring 4 Rods, 22 poles and the rights of the plaintiffs over the property in question are protected under the law. B) To further declare that the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 have no title, concern with the property in question and the act of defendants Nos.1 to 4 regarding interference/encroachment in the property in question and dispossessing the plaintiffs from the same is highly illegal and irregular under the law.. C) To declare that the defendants are not entitled to occupy the properties of plaintiffs which are in the possession. D) By means of injunction the defendants Nos.1 to 4 may also be restrained not to interfere or construct any illegal work on the property in question and also direct the defendants Nos.1 to 4 to remove Kacha boundary wall and material from the property in question and handover the possession of property to plaintiffs with the help of revenue demarcation. E) Defendant No.4 be directed to remove their gas pipelines illegally installed over property in question. F) Concerned administrative authorities be directed to initiate proceedings against the defendants Nos.1 to 4 or their companions required so. G) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be extended in favour of plaintiffs in the interest of justice, equity and fair play". Cost of the suit may also be awarded". "

3. The private respondents resisted the suit, being the defendants. While submitting their written statements, they controverted the assertions contained in the plaint.

4. Another suit was also filed by the respondent No.5 (Muhammad Naeem) for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents Nos.1 to 4 and petitioner before the court.

5. The petitioner resisted the suit, being the defendants. While submitting their written statements, they controverted the assertions contained in the plaint.

6. After framing of issues, the learned trial court directed the parties to produce their respective evidence. Meanwhile, the respondents Nos.1 to 4 have filed an application under section 151, C.P.C. for consolidation of both the suits before the learned trial court. While the petitioners, as well as the respondent No.5 contested the application by way of filing their rejoinder.

7. After hearing arguments, the learned trial court accepted the application vide impugned order dated 31.08.2019 and considered both the suits.

8. Being aggrieved from the order dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned trial court, the petitioners filed Civil Revision Petition under section 115, C.P.C. before the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Quetta, which was dismissed on 15.10.2019 whereafter the instant constitution petition has been filed.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the available record with their available assistance.

10. It may be observed that in the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, no provision for consolidation of a civil suit is provided but the court may consolidate different suits to avoid conflict of judgments provided the parties in the suits are the same, and the cause of action is common. In the present case, the petitioner filed suit for declaration, a permanent injunction in respect of property bearing Khasra Nos.1226/ 1795/1723/1229. On the other hand, the respondents also filed a separate suit for declaration, possession and mandatory/permanent injunction before the learned trial court about the same property. It is an admitted position that subject matter of the two suits is the same, and the two suits are adjudicated separately. There is the likelihood of conflict of judgment since the matter of the two suits is the same, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is proper that they may be consolidated and heard together. Despite the fact that they are at a different stage of adjudication. In so far as the consolidation of suits is concerned the same is the prerogative which is to be exercised on the dictate of the justice. The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled Zahid Zaman Khan v. Khan Afsar (PLD 2016 SC 409) laid down the principles for consolidation of the suits and it was observed as follows:-- "It is settled law that it is the inherent power of the court to consolidate suits and the purpose behind it is to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to prevent abuse of the process of law and court and to avoid conflicting judgements. No hard and fast rule forming the basis of consolidation can be definitive and it depends upon the facts and the points of law involved in each and every case, obviously where the court is persuaded that the interests of justice so demand, consolidation can be ordered, provided no prejudice is caused to any litigant and there is no bar in the way of the courts to consolidate the suits".

11. Similar observation was made by the apex Court in a case titled Muhammad Yaqoob v. Behram Khan (2006 SCMR 1262). "It is well settled by a long chain of authorities that the consolidation of the suits can be ordered by the court in exercise of the inherent powers. The consent of the parties is not the condition precedent for exercise of such powers. The purpose of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of litigation to eliminate award of contradictory judgements and to prevent the abuse of the process of the court".

12. The upshot of the above-mentioned dicta of the honourable Supreme Court is that consolidation of the suits is to be ordered in order to avoid contradictory judgements and for better administration of justice. In view of the above, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by both the courts below, as such, the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner is meritless and is hereby dismissed. MQ/42/Bal. Petition dismissed.