Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 151

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 151---Consolidation of suits---Trial Court refused Consolidation of suits while High Court ordered Consolidation of two suits---Validity---Both the suits had been separately tried and statements of witnesses had been recorded in both suits---Trial Court had although recorded at one stage that consolidation was necessary; yet suits were not consolidated and proceedings continued separately---Proceedings in both suits having been taken separately and statements of many witnesses having been recorded separately, ends of justice would not be served as in case of Consolidation evidence had to be recorded afresh and that would result in further delay in the disposal of suits which were subjudice since 1978 and 1980---Order of Consolidation was thus, not justified at all---Both the suits were, however, to be disposed of simultaneously after their completion. Harinarain Choudhary v. Ram Asish Singh AIR 1957 Pat. 124; Muhammad Siddiq v. Mst. Zahida Begum 1986 CLC 2963; Mst. Hafizan v. Muhammad Yasin 1985 CLC 1448; Pakistan v. Messrs Agromarketing Corporation Ltd. 1981 CLC 443 and Gangaprashad v. Mt. Banaspati AIR 1937 Nag. 132 ref. Pakistan v. Messrs Agromarketing Corporation Ltd. 1981 CLC 443 rel. Muhammad Farid Khan for Appellants. Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1992. JUDGMENT SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, CJ. ---This apeal has been directed against the order of the High Court dated 9-5-1992, whereby the High Court ordered the trial of the suits after consolidating the same together:   The brief facts of the case are that two suits, one by respondent, Muhammad Younis, regarding Survey No. 88 measuring 13 Kanals 9-1/2 Marlas and other by the appellants pertaining to Survey No. 57 measuring 21 Kanals and 11 Marlas, were instituted in the Court of Sub-Judge, Muzaffarabad. Both the suits were processed independently and evidence was also recorded separately till 21-11-1983, when the last and final opportunity was given to the respondent for producing his evidence. The evidence of the respondent was closed on 21-11-1983. Subsequently it came to the notice of the Court that Dullah, a party…