The court has inherent power to consolidate suits where it is in the ends of justice to do so, even without the consent of the parties.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. Defendants are the petitioners. They have moved this Court in revision against an order, dated the 21st April, 1954 of the Munsif of Barh, rejecting their application for consolidation of Title Suits Nos. l to 3 of 19,52, and hearing them together as analogous cases.

2. There was a proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure between the petitioners and the opposite party, which was decided on the 22nd January, 1951, against the opposite party. To this proceeding, opposite party Nos. 1, 3 and 5, along with two others, were parties as second party; and the defendants, who are petitioners before this Court, were first party. Sec.145 proceeding was in respect of plots Nos. 503, 504, 505, 506, 460 and a portion of 455, After the adverse order in the aforesaid proceeding against them, the opposite party, on the 23rd January, 1952, filed three different suits; opposite party No. 1 filed Title Suit No. 1 of 1952, in respect of plots 505 and 455; opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 filed Title Suit No. 2 of 1952, in respect of plots 506 and 460 and opposite party Nos. 5 and 6 filed Title Suit No. 3 of 1952, in respect of plot No. 503.

The present petitioners are the defendants in all the three suits. These three suits were instituted originally in the Court of the Munsif at Barh, but, later on, they were all transferred to the Court of the Additional Munsif at the same place on different dates under orders of the District Judge, Patna. But, subsequently, all these three suits were re-transferred to the Court of the Munsif at Barh by the District Judge, Patna. Title Suit No. 1 of 1952 was transferred on the 18th April, 1953, Title Suit No. 2 of 1952 on the 9th December, 1953, and Title Suit No. 3 of 1952 on the 1st April, 1954. All these three suits were, therefore, in the same Court, that is, in the Court below, only on the 1st April, 1954.

3. In Title Suit No. 1 of 1952, the defendants, on the 21st April, 1954 filed a petition for analogous trial, and this petition was rejected on the same date, on the ground that plaintiff No. l had already been examined, and it would not be proper and convenient to try the suits analogous. It is against this order that the petitioners have come up in revision.

4. in Title Suit No. 2 of 1952 also on the 14th April, 1954, the defendants-petitioners had made a similar application for analogous trial of the three suits, but it was also rejected on the same day, that is, on the 21st April, 1954. The defendants have not moved against this order, but they have made the plaintiffs of all the three suits parties to the present application.

5. From the order-sheet of Title Suit No. 1 of 1952, it would appear that the defendants made previous attempts also to have the three suits heard together. The first application, in Title Suit No. 1 of 1952, out of which the present application arises, was made on the 19th June, 1953, and the second one was made on the 4th January, 1954; and both these petitions were rejected--the first 1m-pliedly, and the second expressly, on the 1st February, 1954. But the Court below had no jurisdiction then to order consolidation of the three suits, because the other two suits were not then pending in its Court. It further appears that the parties, both the plaintiff and the defendants of Title Suit No. 1 of 1952, agreed to the examination of their witnesses according to Order 18, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

6. Accordingly, the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 1 of 1952 examined himself as a special witness, as P. W. 1, on the 1st February, 1954. Order 18, Rule 16 provides for the de bene esse examination of a witness about to leave the jurisdiction of the Court, or for other sufficient cause shown to the satisfaction of the Court. The evidence so taken may then be read at any hearing of the suit under Clause (3) of Rule 16 of 6. 18 of the Code. A perusal of the order-sheet of Title Suit No. 1 of 1952 further reveals that the defendants a