Consolidation of Suits

2025 MLD 1268 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. II, R. 2Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 8, 39, 42, 54 & 55Suit for possession through partition, declaration, cancellation of mutation and permanent and mandatory injunctionConsolidation of suitsEffectBar to instituting second suit under O. II, R. 2, C.P.C.ScopeObject of O. II, R. 2, C.P.C. is to avoid splitting of claims and multiplicity of suitsBoth suits were ultimately consolidated, which was sufficient to diminish the impact of said provision of law

When the petitioner parted with his ownership in the suit property by virtue of sanctioning of mutations, he could not claim himself as co-owner of the property and as such suit for separate possession through partition was not maintainable at all, thus, the bar in terms of O. II, R. 2, C.P.C, would not come into play.

2022 MLD 1784 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O.II, R.6-AConsolidation of suits

Petitioner instituted suit for declaration challenging mutation against the respondent, whereas respondent instituted a suit for specific performance agreement with regard to land in disputed khata

Both parties contested each other's suit

Both suits were consolidated and consolidated issues were farmed

Both parties adduced their evidence in support of their respective contentions and had closed their evidence, whereas respondent also closed her evidence in rebuttal

Later on, respondent produced three witnesses but on an objection raised by the petitioner, Trial Court refused to record evidence of the said witnesses

Revisional Court accepted the revision and declared that the right of rebuttal of evidence of respondent in second suit was still open

Held, that in case of similar issues in different suits, suits would be consolidated and decided conjointly on the basis of consolidated trial

In the present case after considering facts of both suits Trial Court consolidated the suits and respondent was treated as plaintiff, whereas petitioner was designated as defendant

Respondent/plaintiff produced her affirmative evidence in support of her contentions and after evidence of petitioner/defendant, respondent/ plaintiff after submitting cancellation report with regard to FIR closed her evidence in rebuttal, meaning thereby, respondent / plaintiff availed of her right to produce affirmative as well as rebuttal evidence in both suits and she could not reopen the case in the garb that rebuttal evidence in connected suit instituted by petitioner was not recorded

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2019 CLC 897 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 96Suits for declaration and permanent injunctionConsolidation of suitsSingle appeal against consolidated judgmentMaintainabilityIndependent status of suits after consolidation would end and they would form only one suitSingle appeal was competent against consolidated judgment

Appellants had failed to point out any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2018 YLRN 268 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

O. I, R. 10Suits for declaration filed by both the partiesConsolidation of suitsApplication for impleadment of party in one of the suitsScopeSuits filed by both the parties had already been consolidatedPetitioner/intervener moved application for impleading him as necessary party which was dismissedValidity

No prejudice would cause to the petitioner as he had already filed suit on the same subject matter against certain respondents

Both the suits had been consolidated

Application for impleadment of petitioner as party had no effect as the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to prove his own suit pending before Trial Court

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the court below

Revision was dismissed in limine.

2016 PLD 409 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 151Inherent powers of Trial CourtConsolidation of suitsPurpose and scope

Court had the inherent power to consolidate suits and the purpose behind it was to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to prevent abuse of the process of law and court and to avoid conflicting judgments

No hard and fast rule forming the basis of consolidation could be definitive and it depended upon the facts and the points of law involved in each and every case

Where the court was persuaded that the interests of justice so demanded, consolidation could be ordered, provided no prejudice was caused to any litigant and there was no bar in the way of the courts to consolidate the suits.

2012 PLD 12 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 10 & 151Consolidation of suitsEvidence of parties recorded in one suit could not be placed and considered in other suit for passing a judgment

Principles.

2011 PLD 26 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 151Consolidation of suitsScope

Suits involving common questions of law and facts should be consolidated in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and conflicting findings

Disposal of such suits through one and same court would be proper

Purpose of consolidation of suits would be to minimize cost of litigation

Two suits once consolidated by an order of court would cease to have independent existence, thus, only one judgment/decree could be passed to regulate both suits.

2010 MLD 1230 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 8, 42 & 54Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 57Suit for possession, declaration and injunctionConsolidation of suits

In the. present case, there were two separate suits and evidence of the parties was recorded in one suit and was considered as valid in the other suit

Validity

Such practice was certainly unwarranted rather was prohibited in accordance with the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Whenever there were two suits pertained to the same subject-matter between the same parties, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to make a specific order for consolidation of both the suits" and to frame consolidated issues; and thereafter record the evidence of the parties in support of their respective allegation

In the absence of consolidation, the evidence of the parties had to be separately recorded in both the suits and evidence in one case, could not be placed and considered in the other suit for passing a judgment

Due to non-recording of evidence in the subsequent suit, the averments of the pleadings of the parties had gone unsubstantiated and in the absence of any material, Trial Court was not legally in a position to record an independent judgment by referring to the evidence of the parties recorded in another suit

Evidence of the parties in circumstances was deficient in nature and they could not substantiate their claims properly

Such lacuna floating on the surface on record was of palpable nature and could not be remedied by the parties or their counsel through their mutual agreement entered into before the Trial Court

Impugned judgment of Appellate Court for remanding both the suits to the Trial Court for observing the legal formalities, was maintained, in circumstances.

2010 YLR 1430 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.151Consolidation of suitsObject and scope

Purpose of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of litigation, to eliminate award of contradictory judgments and to prevent abuse of process of Court.

2010 YLR 1430 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 151 & O.II, R.3Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 144Consolidation of suitsJoinder of causes of actionConcurrent finding of facts by two courts belowPrinciple of estoppelApplicability

Plaintiff claimed that defendants purchased ten buffaloes from him on different occasions but did not pay him their prices

Plaintiff filed ten suits against defendants for recovery of prices of ten buffaloes and all the suits were consolidated, evidence in one suit was recorded and finally Trial Court decreed the suits in favour of plaintiff

Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Plea raised by defendants was that Trial Court could not consolidate and decide all the suits together

Validity

Trial Court had rightly consolidated ten suits of plaintiff for its own as well as for the convenience of parties and in order to avoid contradictory judgments and multiplicity of litigation

Mode adopted by Trial Court in recording and using evidence was correct and defendants were estopped by their conduct to raise objection Subsequently

Both the Courts below had rightly decided material issues in favour of plaintiff by properly appreciating evidence j available on record

No justification and reason were available to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by courts below

Neither there was any illegality or infirmity nor any misreading or non-reading of evidence in judgments passed by two courts below

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two courts below.

2008 PLD 224 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 10 & 151Object and purpose of S.10, C.P.C.Stay of proceedingsConsolidation of suitsScope

Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of money, whereas defendant filed suit for rendition of account, perpetual injunction, appointment of receiver and recovery of damages

Defendant sought stay of suit filed by plaintiff on the ground that matter in issue in both the suits was same between the same parties

Validity

Object of S.10, C.P.C. was to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously adjudicating and proceeding with trial of two suits in which matter in issue was directly and substantially the same between the parties in respect of same cause of action for the same subject-matter and for the same relief

Other object of S.10 C.P.C. was to avoid conflict of opinion of the two courts

One test of applicability of S.10 C.P.C. was whether on final decision being reached in previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in subsequent suit

Subject-­matter of both the suits, in the present case, was same and parties were also the same

Cause of action was different as well as relief claimed in both the suits was also different

Issues in both the suits were also different

If suit filed by defendant was decreed, there would be no need to proceed with the subsequent suit but if for any reason, suit of defendant was dismissed, the suit of plaintiff had to proceed on merits

No purpose would be served in staying proceedings of suit filed by plaintiff

As requirements of staying the proceedings being not available both the suits could be consolidated and disposed of by common judgment

High Court instead of staying the suit, consolidated both the suits and decided to proceed the same together to avoid conflict of opinion

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

2008 CLC 398 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 10 & 151Res sub judice, principle ofApplicabilityTestStay of proceedings

Consolidation of suits-Two suits were pending, one was filed by applicant for specific performance of agreement and permanent injunction while other was filed by respondents for declaration, possession and recovery of mesne profits

Applicant sought stay of suit filed by respondents

Validity

Object of provision of S.10, C.P.C. was to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously adjudicating and proceeding with trial of .two suits in which matter in issue was directly and substantially the same between the parties in respect of same cause of action for the same subject-matter and for the same relief

Other object of S.10, C.P.C. was to avoid conflict of opinion of two courts

One test of applicability of S.10, C.P.C. was to see whether on final decision being reached in previous suit, such decision would operate as resjudicata in subsequent suit

Subject-matters of both the suits were same with the exception of few parties, remaining parties were also same

Causes of action were different as well as reliefs claimed in both suits were also different

If suit filed by applicant was decreed, there would be no need to proceed with subsequent suit but if suit of applicant was dismissed, the suit filed by respondents would have to be proceeded on merits

Instead of staying the suit filed by respondents and to avoid conflict of opinion, High Court consolidated both the suits to proceed together

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

2002 CLC 566 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 151 & 11, Expln. IIIConsolidation of two suitsPrinciple of constructive res judicataApplicabilityTwo suits on the same cause of action between the same parties were pending before the same Trial CourtEarlier suit was at the final stage of decision whereas the subsequent suit was at a preliminary stageAppellant filed application for consolidation of both the suits but the Trial Court declined to do the same

Instead of assailing the order of the Trial Court before higher forum, the appellant filed another similar application after one year in the other suit which was also dismissed

Validity

Where the application for consolidation was repeated after more than one year, on substantially same facts and grounds the appellant could not avoid the implication of principle of constructive res judicata as the same was also applicable to orders passed on applications

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

1994 MLD 136 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Consolidation of SuitsCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.151, 99 & O. II, R.3Consolidation of two suits; one on basis of title and the other on basis of possessionValidity, Consolidation of suits at the best, was akin to misjoinder of causes of action

All objections as to misjoinder would be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues were settled, at or before such settlement (of issues) unless, of course, ground of objection had arisen subsequently

Objection not so taken would be deemed to have been waived

Plaintiff (petitioner) did not resist consolidation of two suits, one filed by him and the other filed by defendant

To make any grievance of consolidation of two suits for the first time in revision was too late

Procedural defects in consolidating of two suits, if any, stood cured by provision of S.99, Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Contention that since in the suit filed by defendant, plaintiff could not file appeal, therefore, prejudice had been caused to him had no force

Remedy of appeal was not only available to petitioner but same was availed by him both against the dismissal of his suit as also against decree for possession passed against him

No prejudice had thus been caused to petitioner.