1. The defendant in this application has prayed for the following reliefs:--- "That J.M. No.74/91 and Execution No.148/90, arising out of Suit No.845/88 be consolidated and heard together. In the alternative the photostat copies of the plaint, judgment and decree ex parte affidavit of the plaintiff's advocate and the Talaqnama filed with this application are enclosed hereto and marked D-1 to D-5 be taken on record in J.M. No. 74/91 "
2. This application is supported by the affidavit of Bahauddin Sirhandi son of Ghulam Mohiuddin, relevant paragraphs of the same are reproduced as under:--- "(3) That I say that this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction under the law to entertain a suit based on damages consequential to the act of the divorce by a husband.
(4) That the ex parte decree passed against me in the sum of Rs.50,00,000 in Suit No. 845 of 1988 now pursued in Execution Application No. 148 of 1990 is liable to be set aside under Order 9, Rule 7, C.P.C. In the absence of ex parte evidence. The application for setting aside is made in J. M.
No.15/91.
(5) That it is in the interest of justice to consolidate all the four matters being Suit No.845/88 Exh.
No.148/90, J.M. No.15/91 and J.M. No.74/91, or alternatively bring on record documents in J.M.
No.74/91 as are annexed to the accompanying application under section 151, C.P.C.
3. I have heard Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent and Mr. Rasheed A. Akhund, learned counsel for the defendant/applicant.
4. Mr. Rasheed A. Akhund has contended (i) that in J.M. No.74 of 1991 it is submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to have entered into this suit for claim of damages of Rs.50,00,000 arising out of divorce by the defendant to the plaintiff; (ii) that in order to fully adjudicate this plea of defendant the plaint as filed by the plaintiff in Suit No.845/88 which shows lack of jurisdiction must be taken into consideration while disposing of J.M. No.74 of 1991; (iii) that ex parte affidavit, Talaqnama, judgment and decree dated 13-11-1989 are also necessary to be taken into consideration; (iv) that C.M.A. No.663 of 1991 dated 24-3-1991 for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed within three years and can be taken into consideration under Order 9, Rules 7 and 13, C.P.C. As the decree was passed without ex parte evidence because the decree was passed without taking evidence; (v) that in the interest of justice time-barred ex parte decree can be set aside suo Motu by the Court; and (vi) that no counter-affidavit to this application is filed by Mst. Tanvir Amna, the plaintiff.
5. Mr. Rasheed A. Akhund has referred the following case-law:-----
(1) 1985 CLC 1448 Case of Mst. Hafizan v. Muhammad Yasin and 2 others:
(2) 1982 PLC 793: "An order with regard to consolidation is usually made when a number of suits or petitions although filed by different parties involve identical question of laws and facts. Such an order is essentially one of procedural nature. "
6. The parties involved in the case in hand are husband and wife. Mst. Tanvir Amna, the plaintiff, had filed suit for recovery of Rs.50,00,000 as damages, allegedly caused to the plaintiff due to the mental torture and defamation resulting from her divorce by the defendant/applicatant Bahauddin. The suit was decreed ex parte vide order dated 13-11-1989, which is as under:--- "Mr. Ghulam Ghous for the plaintiff.
The summons of this Court was served on the defendant but he has failed to appear and file a written statement in the case. The plaintiff's attorney Younis Inayat has filed affidavit in ex parte proof in support of the averments made in the plaint. The suit is, therefore, decreed against the defendant as prayed."
And thereafter Execution No. 148 of 1990 was filed by Mst. Tanvir Amna, plaintiff/decree-holder, which is pending in this Court.
7. The dispute and the litigation between the husband and wife can very well be adjudicated by consolidation of Suit No.845 of 1988, Execution No.148/90 and J. M. No. 74 of 1991. '
8. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho has contended (i) that provisions of section 12(2), C.P.C. Are not applicable in this matter as the suit is decided finally; (ii) that there is no any need of consolidation of the matter; (iii) that the application merits no consideration.
9. Mr. Rasheed A. Akhund has challenged jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining the suit based on damages and consequential act of divorce by the husband, applicant/ defendant. According to Mr. Rasheed A. Akhund the applicant had not received service of the summons in this case and also on account of negligence of an advocate of the defendant/applicant the suit was decided ex parte against the defendant/applicant. According to the Muslim Law which governs the rights and liabilities of the spouses, inter se does not envisage the payment of damages as a result of dissolution of marriage. Dissolution entitles the wife to dower, if still unpaid and maintenance but not to damage of any kinds.
10. In view of the provisions of section 151, C.P.C., which reads as under, the prayer for consolidation of the matters will be in the interest of justice:--- "151. Saving of inherent power of Court:---Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court."
11. Mr. Rasheed A. Akhund, learned counsel for the applicant stated at the Bar that for the time being he is not pressing for consolidation of J.M. No.15/1991 with this matter. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the case-law cited above, this application is allowed and Suit No.4-5/88; Execution No.148/90 and J.M No.74/91 are ordered to be consolidated: A.A./B-6/KApplication consolidated.