2003 PLP 82 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑S. 151‑‑‑Inherent powers of Court‑‑ Consolidation of suits‑‑‑Purpose and scope‑‑ Consolidation was desired in the interest of justice to avoid likelihood of contradictory and conflicting judgments and decrees‑‑ Where cases of like nature and disputed questions, subject‑matter in dispute and litigating parties were identical then consolidation would be necessary for the ends of justice. Muhammad Zafar Chaudhry for Petitioner. Brief facts in this writ petition are that suit for maintenance, recovery of dowry amounting to Rs.86,320 and suit for recovery of dower worth Rs.50,000 were filed by the petitioner. All the three suits were consolidated, consolidated issues were framed and evidence was also recorded and through consolidated judgment and decree, dated 12‑2‑2001 the suits were disposed of. The petitioner preferred three different appeals before the learned Appellate Court, which were dismissed by one consolidated judgment and decree dated 21‑9‑2001 and now the present writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner only pressed one ground that there is no procedure in the rules as well as in the Act that the suits of different nomenclature can be consolidated in one suit. As far as suit for maintenance is concerned the cause of action is absolutely different and also in suit for recovery of dowry the cause of action being different on different date, these three suits cannot be consolidated and consolidated issues, if are settled, they are against the law as laid down in the Family Courts Act. It was incumbent upon the learned Judge, Family Court that he should have recorded the judgment in each case separately of the petitioner as well as the respondent and the issues should have been framed separately and thereafter the evidence should have been recorded separately‑so that the appreciation of evidence should have been done in it perspective but the learned Judge, Fame: Court adopted absolutely novel procedure: which is prohibited by the law. Learn counsel for the petitioner did not press any other ground.

3. I have heard the Learned counsel the petitioner and perused the record. The aforesaid objection of the petitioner is answered by the Family Courts Act itself. in section 2(b) "Family Court" means a Court constituted under this Act" and it is a Civil Court despite the exclusion of Code of Civil Procedure in the application of proceedings before the Family Court. It is a judicial Court in every sense and under the law C.P.C. all Civil Courts have inherent powers under section 151, C.P.C. and the Family Court being Civil Court also enjoys the provision of section 151, C.P.C. having inherent power to consolidate the different disputes in different family suits arising out of the wedlock of the spouses. No specific exclusion is provided under the law "Mst. Hafizan v. Muhammad Yasin and 2 others" (1985 CLC 1448) Powers of two suits raising identical questions of fact and law consolidated by Family Court held: Court being competent to order consolidation in exercise of its inherent powers, no illegality committed in case by ordering consolidation of suits raising identical questions.

4. The desirability of consolidation is to avoid likelihood of contradictory and conflicting judgments by two Courts suit filed before Civil Judge in the interest of justice and also to avoid Conflict of decrees, therefore, under section 151, C.P.C. it is E necessary for "ends of justice" that cases of same like nature be consolidated where disputes in question, subject‑matter of dispute and litigating parties are identical. It is also held in Mirza Daud Baig v. Additional District Judge, Gujranwala and others 1987 SCMR 1161 that Family Court is a Civil Court and despite the exclusion in C.P.C. and Evidence Act in the application of proceeding before the Family Court it is a judicial Court in every sense.

5. Even otherwise vide the Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary October 1, 2002, Part I, there is amendment in section 7, West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 and following proviso has been added:‑‑ "Provided that a plaint for dissolution of marriage may contain all claims relating to dowry, maintenance, dower, personal property and belongings of wife, custody of children and visitation rights of parents to meet their children; and (b) In subsection (3), in clause (ii), after the word 'plaint' at the end, the words 'giving reasons of relevancy of these documents to the claim of the plaint' shall be added. "

6. Therefore, the legal point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to non‑existence of provision of section 151, C C.P.C. in the Family Courts Act the family suits cannot be consolidated is totally without substance. Instant writ petition is dismissed in limine. S.A.K./N‑249/L Petition dismissed.