' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- We intend to decide both the above mentioned captioned petitions by one consolidated Order having common question of law arising out of the same impugned judgment.
The detailed facts have already been mentioned in the impugned judgment. However, necessary facts out of which the present petitions arise are that petitioner filed a Suit No,1 of 2000 for specific performance of a contract and permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant in the Court of Civil Judge, Quetta. Respondent had also filed a Suit No,53 of 2003 against petitioner and six others in the Court of District Judge, Quetta for possession mesne profits and permanent injunction. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner and respondent had also filed written statements of the aforesaid suits. Respondent filed an application under section 151, C.P.C. For consolidation of suits in the Court of Civil Judge, Quetta. The learned trial Court dismissed the application vide order, dated 4-9-2003 in Civil Suit 53 of 2003 and ordered that the Suit No,53 of 2003 be stayed and also dismissed the application for consolidation in Civil Suit No,1 of 2000.
Respondent being aggrieved filed Civil Revisions Nos.17 of 2003 and 18 of 2003 in the High Court of Balochistan. The learned High Court accepted the revision petitions vide impugned consolidated judgment, dated 13-4-2004 wherein both the suits were ordered to be consolidated and the orders of the trial Court dated 4-9-2003 and 11-9-2003 were set aside with the direction to the trial Court to dispose of the matter within six months. Hence the present petitions.
2. Petitioner submits that trial Court was justified to dismiss the application for consolidation of cases with cogent reasons and stayed the suit of the respondent as the petitioner had filed suit prior in time. He further urges that suit of the petitioner was at the stage of conclusion whereas the suit of the respondent was at initial 'stage.
3. We have given our due consideration to the contention of petitioner and perused the record. It is a settled principle of law that where a common subject of claim is in dispute in counter-suits, both the suits are consolidated and decided together. This rule is imperative in order to avoid conflicting decisions. The rule was completely ignored by the trial Court as it failed to decide the issue in question and committed error to stay the proceeding of the respondent's suit which was rightly rectified by the learned High Court with cogent reasons in the impugned judgment. It is pertinent to mention here that parties in both the suits are the same and subject-matter/property is the same.
It is well-settled by a long chain of authorities that the consolidation of the suits can be ordered by the Court in exercise of its inherent powers. The consent of the parties is not the condition precedent for exercise of such powers. The purpose of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of litigation to eliminate award of contradictory judgments and to prevent the abuse of the process B of the Court. These purposes are merely illustrative and not exhaustive of the powers of the Court.
There may be other variety of grounds that in the interest of justice the Court may be persuaded to consolidate the cases. The learned trial Court had stayed the proceedings of the suit of the respondent without judicial application of mind in violation of the law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements. See Mollah Ejahar Ali's case PLD 1970 SC 173 and Gouranga Mohan Sikdar's case PLD 1970 SC 158. The impugned order has been passed with jurisdiction, is a just and proper order, expedient and in the interest of both the parties, as it will conclusively and finally decide the entire issues comparatively in muchless number of years than if the same were to be tried one after the other. The impugned judgment is in accordance with the law laid down by the superior Courts. See Adam Ltd.'s case PLD 1963 Kar. 514 (four suits were consolidated),and Nur Elahi's case PLD 1966 SC 708 (two criminal cases were consolidated). No jurisdictional defect or error of law has been pointed out so as to persuade us to interfere with the impugned judgment in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. If we are to analyse the rationale behind sections 10 and 11, C.P.C., two sections seem to be based on the principle that the multiplicity of litigation should be avoided and no one should be troubled twice for the same cause and bearing in mind the same principle and the plethora of case-law taken note of in Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd.'s case PLD 1976 Kar.
249.
4. In view of what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in both these petitions which are hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined. However, in the interest of justice and fairplay, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.