SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J. Tersely, the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration challenging the vires of mutation No.3234 dated 09.09.2010 against the respondent No.2; whereas the respondent No.2 instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement with regard to land measuring 13 Marlas in disputed Khata No.2874. Both the rival parties contested each other's suit. On application of the respondent No.2, both the suits were consolidated vide order dated 27.04.2015 and consolidated issues were framed. Both the parties adduced their evidence in support of their respective contentions and closed their evidence, whereas the respondent No.2 also closed her evidence in rebuttal. Later on, on 20.10.2016, the respondent No.2 produced three witnesses but an objection on behalf of petitioner side was raised, so the learned Trial Court vide order dated 10.01.2017 refused to record evidence of the proposed witnesses produced by the respondent No.2, who feeling aggrieved of the said order, filed revision petition and the learned Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 30.03.2017 accepted the revision petition, set aside the order dated 10.01.2017 and declared that the right of rebuttal evidence of Ghulam Fatima respondent No.2 in second suit is still open. Hence, the instant constitutional petition, calling into question the legality of impugned order dated 30.03.2017, passed by the learned Revisional Court, has been filed by the petitioner.
2. Heard.
3. Considering the arguments and going through the record, it is observed that on 27.04.2015 while deciding application for consolidation of both the suits ibid, the learned Trial Court in a categorical way ordered that: "In this state of affairs, the controversy between the parties regarding subject matter is the same and the parties are also same, therefore, to avoid from conflicting judgment and for convenience of the parties, the instant application is accepted and the above said suit is hereby consolidated with the instant suit the proceedings will be conducted in the instant suit."
It is worth mentioning here that Rule 6-A, Order II has been inserted in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which relates to the consolidation of suits and the same provides: "6-A. Consolidation of suits.- Where two or more suits or proceedings of the same nature requiring determination of similar issues between the same parties are pending in relation to the same subject matter, the Court may if considers it expedient for avoiding multiplicity of litigation or conflict in judgments, direct the consolidation of such suits or proceedings as one trial, whereupon all such suits or proceedings shall be decided on the basis of the consolidated trial"
Bare perusal of the above provision of law enunciates that in case of similar issues in different suits, the said suits will be consolidated and will be decided conjointly on the basis of consolidated trial. In the present case after considering facts of both these suits instituted by the rival parties i.e. respondent No.2 and the present petitioner, the learned Trial Court consolidated the suits and the respondent No.2 was treated as plaintiff, whereas the present petitioner was designated as defendant. Respondent No.2 produced her affirmative evidence in support of her contentions and after evidence of the present petitioner, the respondent No.2 on 13.07.2015 after submitting cancellation report with regard to F.I.R. No.36 of 2014 as Ex.P-4 closed her evidence in rebuttal, meaning thereby, the respondent No.2 availed of her right to produce affirmative as well as rebuttal evidence in both the suits and she cannot reopen the case in the garb that rebuttal evidence in the connected suit instituted by the present petitioner was not recorded. In case of JHANDA through Legal Heir v.
MUHAMMAD YOUNAS reported as (PLD 1994 Lahore 100), it was held by this Court that: "Plaintiff has unreservedly closed his affirmative evidence and hence, he could not have been permitted to record the statement in affirmative after the close of defense evidence to that extent his testimony carried little weight."
However, in the present case as observed above, the respondent No.2 has produced her affirmative as well as rebuttal evidence, therefore, the learned Revisional Court while travelling beyond vested jurisdiction has wrongly adjudicated upon the matter in hand. The impugned order suffers from legal infirmity, thus the same cannot be allowed to hold field further.
4. The epitome of the discussion above is that the constitutional petition in hand succeeds and the same is allowed, consequence whereof the impugned order dated 30.03.2017 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge concerned is set aside and order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court stands restored. No order as to the costs.