ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J. --- Applicant, Riasat Ali, by way of this revision, has challenged judgment of the District Judge Sukkur passed on 28.6.2002 in respondents' civil appeal No. 04/2002 setting aside judgment and decree of the IInd Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur passed on 28.11.2001 in applicant's suit No. 132 of 1997 and remanding the same for its consolidation with respondent No. 2's suit bearing No. 64 of 1997 and deciding both the suits together by framing consolidated issues.
2. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No. 2's father late Muhammad Yasin (respondent No. 1) sold a house bearing C.S. No. A-100, measuring 89-3 sq. Yds., situated near Qadri Masjid, Thalia Ramdas, Rohri, to the applicant for Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of a sale-deed executed and registered on 16.09.1996 and, on the basis of the said sale-deed, the property was mutated in his name in the city survey record. Notwithstanding the execution and registration of the sale-deed, the physical possession of the house was not passed on to the applicant and the seller (Muhammad Yaseen), who was a relation of the applicant, was allowed, for the sake of saving education of his grand children from being disturbed, to remain in its occupation upto April, 1997, when he was-to vacate it and shift to Sukkur. He, however, did not vacate and instead his son respondent No. 2 filed suit No. 64/1996 contending that his father, by an agreement dated 12.12.1995 had agreed to sell the house to him for a total consideration of Rs. 80,000/- out of which Rs. 40,000/- were paid to him at the time of entering into the agreement. According to him, on coming to know about the sale-deed (on which he was shown as one of the attesting witnesses) he asked his father as to why he had sold the property but the latter could not give him satisfactory reply and simply refused to specifically perform his part of the contract. Faced with such situation, the applicant also filed the above- mentioned suit No. 152 of 1997 for possession, recovery of charges for use and occupant of the house and for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from handing over its possession to any other person and also from dismantling/demolishing the house or any portion of it. The suit filed
3. I have heard arguments of Mr. Saleem Akhtar Buriro, Advocate for the applicant, and have perused the record including the impugned judgment. Despite notice, nobody appeared from the side of the respondents.
4. There is no separate statutory provision for the consolidation of suits. Nevertheless, the Courts, in exercise of their discretionary inherent power, have been, in appropriate cases, consolidating suits for the sake of convenience and expediency so as to save time and labour and also to avoid possibility of any conflict in the findings. Since consolidation is made on the principles of convenience and expediency stage of the proceedings will have to be taken into consideration as an important factor. Normally, consolidation should be made at the initial stage of trial and the best time for doing So will be the stage of framing issues. Anyway, resort to consolidation might not be taken when the suits or any of them is at final stage ripe for decision or when they or any of them has already been-decided, for that might be a cause of great inconvenience and prejudice at least to. a successful party. The object and benefit of consolidation might not be fully achieved by reversing the course of the proceedings, It will be worth to mention here that no request for consolidation was made either before the Trial Court or even before the Appellate Court and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 cannot have a grievance against the non-consolidation of the two suits. He chose not to proceed with his own suit and opted only to defend the applicant's suit. As regards the apprehension of the possibility of any conflicting finding which might be given in the suit of the respondent the principle of res judicata provides adequate safeguard. Moreover, learned counsel for the applicant stated that respondent No. 2's suit had also been dismissed and in support be placed on record certified copy of the judgment dated 13.03.2004 of the Trial Court meaning thereby that the purpose of remanding applicant's suit for its consolidation with the respondent No. 2's suit has also been frustrated.
3. In such circumstances, particularly when the respondent No. 2 chose not to proceed with his own suit and opted only to defend the suit filed by the applicant, it would not be fair to deprive the applicant from the decree passed in his favour after fully contesting the suit. The practice and the principle of consolidating suits being discretionary and not mandatory, its non-observance cannot be given the effect of invalidating the . Proceeding so as to set aside the decree only for that reason. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge remanding the matter for consolidating it with the respondent No. 2's suit is set aside and the learned District Judge is directed to decide the appeal on merits.