' CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J. --- The facts necessitated for the disposal of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner, Mohammad Sadiq, filed a suit for specific performance of oral agreement to sell dated 15.10.2007 against respondents No,. 3 to 10 on 24.08.2012 before the learned Trial Court. The respondents filed their contesting written statement on 13.12.2012 with the assertion that disputed agreement was a fake and fraudulent document, whereas, a portion of the disputed property had already been transferred in favour of Khalid Bin Shabbir, who had filed a suit for specific performance on 20.07.2007, which was decreed due to compromise vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.2011. The learned Trial Court framed the issues in the said suit filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner produced evidence in the shape of PW1 to PW4 and also tendered the documentary evidence Ex:P1 to Ex.P3 and Mark-A on 18.02.2014. Meanwhile, on 23.1.2014, the petitioner also filed an application under Section 12(2), CPC for setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 30.7.2011 before the learned Trial Court. On 04.02.2014 the petitioner filed an application for the consolidation of said application under Section 12(2), CPC alongwith the suit for specific performance. The learned Trial Court dismissed the said application vide order dated 04.02.2014. The petitioner assailed the said order by preferring revision before the learned revisional court, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 27.2.2014, hence the instant writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned orders passed by both the learned courts below suffer from jurisdictional defect; that both the learned courts below committed material irregularity and illegality while dismissing the application for consolidating both the matters and the revision petition filed by the petitioner without adverting that those have nexus with each other, whose independent trial and disposal would result in conflicting judgments amounting to multiplicity of litigation. He has lastly prayed for the acceptance of instant writ petition and setting aside of the impugned orders passed by both the learned Courts below.
3. Arguments heard and the documents appended with the writ petition perused with anxious consideration to the controversy involved.
4. The contents of the pleadings of above referred two matters i,e, suit for specific performance and application under Section 12(2), CPC have been gone through, but the same do not disclose the same cause of action as asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and, therefore, the objection that independent trial will cause inconvenience and multiply the controversy is not available in the present case. The other fact that the evidence in one suit may be helpful to the party in the other litigation also cannot be a ground for consolidation. The suit for specific performance was filed by the petitioner on 24.8.2012, wherein, evidence was also led by him before the learned Trial Court and thereafter an application under Section 12(2), CPC was filed on 23.1.2014 after a considerable delay. The filing of an application for consolidation of newly born proceedings in the shape of application under Section 12(2) CPC alongwith the proceedings of a matured and ripped suit for specific performance is apparently based upon oblique motive. There also does not seem any justification for consolidation of such cases where trial of one of them has already reached near to conclusion and the expenses and time of parties as well as a court, which is intended to be saved would have already been caused and incurred. To my mind. Under inherent powers the courts should normally exercise their such power only where the consolidation is prayed for at an early stage of trial. As there is no specific provision of law for the consolidation of suit, such powers have to be exercised only in the cases where it finds that it will be convenient for the parties and the Court to have a consolidated trial of two cases. For the said purpose it is also to be seen that whether in the foregoing trial it will be beneficial for all concerned to have two cases to be tried together.
5. The basic premises of the instant application for consolidation filed by the petitioner is that the petitioner had been using tactics for keeping in abeyance the finalization of the suit for specific performance as there was no reason at the belated stage when the trial of said suit was almost concluded to consolidate the said suit to a newly filed application under Section 12(2), CPC. Even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to show any nexus in both the matters for consolidation and criteria for consideration thereof is entirely different from each other. It is not case of the petitioner that the decree involved in the application filed under Section 12(2), CPC was passed during the pendency of the suit filed by him for specific performance rather the said suit was filed on 20.7.2007 prior to the alleged agreement to sell dated 15.10.2007 in favour of the petitioner and the same was also decreed on 30.7.2011 before filing of the suit by the petitioner on 24.8.2012. In such facts and circumstances, there does not appear any defect in the impugned orders to be cured, which had been passed with jurisdiction by the learned courts below especially in view of the above conduct of the petitioner and for that purpose the concerned learned District Judge has already passed a direction for the disposal of the suit for specific performance within specified time. The impugned orders are apparently based on sound judicial principles and discretion has been exercised by both the learned courts below properly and judiciously.
6. In view of foregoing discussion, no case has been made out by the petitioner. The instant writ petition is dismissed in limine with costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.