' With the concurrence of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is treated as Pacca case.
Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit on 31-10-2003 before the Civil Court for the cancellation of a cheque allegedly issued by him. Likewise; the respondent also filed a suit on 12- 12-2003 under Order 37 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Before the learned District Judge for the recovery of amount on the basis of the same cheque which already stands challenged by the petitioner through a civil suit. The petitioner after having been served moved two applications before the District Court, one for the grant of leave to defend and the other under section 10 of the C.P.C. For staying the proceedings before the District Court. Vide order, dated 30-1-2004, his application for leave to defend was granted and vide order, dated 13-5-2004, his application under section 10, C.P.C. For the stay of the proceedings was rejected. This order is being assailed through the instant civil revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no denying the fact that the petitioner's suit is earlier in time. The issue in both the suits substantially is the same between the same parties, therefore, under section 10, C.P.C. It was mandatorily required that the said suit be stayed till the final adjudication of the suit filed by the petitioner before the Civil Court.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while relying on 2004 SCM R 108 contends that in an identical case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had consolidated two suits. It is further argued that the petitioner wants cancellation of the same cheque on the basis of which the petitioner seeks a decree for recovery. It is further submitted that case pleaded by both the parties in both the suits is the same, the issues to be evolved are also the same, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that both the suits are consolidated before one Court.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. There is no denying the fact that both the parties are litigating against each other on one disputed cheque. The case set up by both the parties before both the Courts below is the same.
Section 10, C.P.C. Is a procedural law to avoid contradictions and complications. However, it is also in the interest of justice and the parties as well, that the common issue is resolved by one Court, instead of unnecessarily keeping one case pending till the disposal of the other when there is total identity among the two. In this view of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice that the suit filed by the petitioner pending A in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Tariq Civil Judge, Multan is withdrawn from his Court and is entrusted to Mr. Sana Ullah Niazi, Addl. District. Judge, Multan where respondent's suit is pending. Both the suits shall, be consolidated by the transferee Court and decided in accordance with law. With this observation, this petition stands disposed of.