MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J. - Through this Constitutional petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the respondents No. 2 & 3 whereby the petitioners' application for consolidation of suits between the parties was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit for possession through specific performance in the year 2003 which is pending adjudication before the learned Trial Court/respondent No. 3 and evidence of both the parties is almost complete. The other suit which was filed by the present petitioners in the year 2009 seeking declaration with consequential relief, is at an initial stage even issues have not been framed. An application for consolidation was moved on 08.03.2010, however this application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 08-09-2010 against which the revision petition was filed and the same was also dismissed by the respondent No. 2/Additional District Judge, Lahore on 24.05.2010. By assailing these orders through this Constitutional petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the Courts below have failed to exercise their jurisdiction while refusing to accept the application of the petitioners which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that both the suits are between the same parties and about the same transaction, hence to avoid the conflicting judgments, it was appropriate for the learned Trial Court to consolidate the suits and decide them through a combined judgment in the interest of justice.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contends that this Court has no jurisdiction to exercise its Constitutional jurisdiction against the orders which are outcome of the civil proceedings. Since the law has provided the remedies which have been availed by the petitioners, hence the remedy which has not directly provided by the statute cannot be availed indirectly. Further contends that even otherwise, there is no occasion for the petitioners to get their suit connected with the suit which has been filed by the respondent No. 1 and has ripened after recording the evidence of the parties. It is further contended that for completing the proceedings of the suit -filed by the respondent No. 1, almost eight years had already elapsed and if at this stage, if the suit of the present petitioners is allowed to be clubbed together with the petitioner's suit, then another decade is likely to be taken for completion of windfall proceedings the suit. Even otherwise, contends that evidence in the suit of the petitioner is already completed and it would be unjustifiable to consolidate a premature suit with that of a mature suit, rather it would amount to stay the proceedings of the suit of respondent No. 1, thus causing inordinate delay in dispensation of justice, which runs counter to the judicially recognized axiom "justice delayed justice denied".
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. At this stage, the consolidation of the suits is inexpedient in the interest of the parties. I find that the suit of the respondent No. 1 is on the verge of adjudication and I also discover from the pleadings of the parties that the agreement to sell has not denied by the defendants/present petitioners in the suit of the respondent No. 1 whereas the suit of the present petitioners is in infancy. If at this stage, the suit of the present petitioners is allowed to' be clubbed with the suit of respondent No. 1, it would undeniably result in the reversal/stay of the proceedings in, the suit of the respondent No. 1, which is at a finishing stage. Even otherwise, both the suits have independent causes of action and I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the Courts below while passing the orders impugned in this writ petition. The exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction is permissible in the civil matters against the interim orders where the same has not been exercised primarily but 'in special circumstances may be exercised. There is no special. Circumstance involved in this case and I come to Ns irresistible conclusion that this is not a fit case warranting exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction against the order passed by the Courts of competent jurisdiction. Consequently, this petition has no merits and dismissed accordingly. .