Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 796 of 1978, decided on 28th October, 1978.

‑‑ S. 151‑Inherent jurisdiction‑Consolidation of suits‑Can be ordered by Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction‑Consent of parties‑Not a condition precedent for exercise of such power Purpose of consolidation : To avoid multiplicity of litigation, to eliminate award of contradictory judgments, to prevent abuse of process of Court, and to act on variety of' other grounds in interests of justice.‑[Jurisdiction].

Dawarka Das v. Governor‑General of India‑in‑Council etc. A I R 1947 Lah. 29; Kali Charcm Dal and others v. Shuja Kumar Mondal and others 17 C W N 526; Har Pras ad Rai and others v. Brij Kishan Das and others 45 I C 551; Kazi Syed Muhammad Afzar v. Man Kumar Mahtan 67 I C 1000 and Lal v. Inayat Bibi etc. P L D 1975 Lah. 567 ref.

S. 10‑Stay of suit‑Section 10, Civil Procedure Code, 1908‑Does not bar institution of second suit but only restrains' Court from proceeding with trial of second suit if earlier and second suit both relate to same parties and matter in both suits directly and substantially same.‑[Sub judice].

‑‑ S. 10‑Stay of suit‑Prerequisites for stay of trial of second suit: Whole of subject‑matter in issue in both suits to be same and complete identity of questions of law and facts to exist‑Universality of only some aspects in two suits, held, not sufficient for application of S. 10.‑[Sub judice].

Jamini Kanta Roy Chowdhury and others v. Aswini Kumar Haldar and others P L D 1961 Dacca 344; Muhammad Younas v. Nargis Sultana P L D 1970 Lah. 41; Gargi Din Misra v. Debi Charan A I R 1929 All. 805 and Hathi Ram v. Hazi Muhammad A I R 1954 All. 141 ref.

S. 151‑Consolidation of suits‑Dispute emerging from same transaction but oneness of issues absent‑Consolidation of cases in such event not only desirable but also obligatory‑Complete identity of facts and questions of law in two suits, held, not a sine qua non for consolidation.

‑‑ S. 151‑Consolidation of suits‑Arguments being heard in earlier suit and second suit still at initial stage‑Consolidation of suits, held, may justifiably be asked for before commencement of trial of suit sought to be got consolidated, or where common evidence given in such suits but where such stage passed and none of such factors found, prayer for consolidation not practicable.

S. 151 read with maxim: Actus curiae nominem gravabit‑Court, inherent powers of‑Directions in interest of justice‑Court in absence of prohibition or procedure in Code of Civil Procedure‑Deemed to be possessed of inherent powers necessary to do complete justice according to varying situations‑Conclusiveness of some of issues in earlier suit before finalisation of second suit likely to lead to complica tion and further unnecessary litigation‑Possibility of conflicting judgments also existing‑Documentary evidence led by both parties in previous suit and controversy largely begged on decision of law points.‑Evidence in subsequent suit visualised to consist primarily of documents necessitating resolution of same legal issues‑Hearing of subsequent suit if expedited such case not to take long to reach argument stage‑Second suit, in circumstances, in interests of justice directed to be heard from day to day, to give longer adjournments only when inevitable and to complete hearing of arguments in previous suit but to announce judgments in both suits simultaneously.‑[Maxim].

National Bank of Pakistan v. Mst. Malka Pukhraj and others P L D 1975 Lab. 1235; Mian Arshad All v. Government of Pakistan P L D 1975 Lah. 7; Abdul Ghafar v. That Development Authority P L D 1958 Lah. 169 and Ram Bahadur Thakur & Co. v. Davidayal (Sales) Ltd. A I R 1954 Bom. 176 ref.

Rana Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Anwar Waraich for Petitioner.

M. Sarfaraz Cheema for Respondent No. 1.

Aftab Ahmad Khan for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

Dates of hearing : 19th, 23th July ; 26th and 27th August, 1978.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.