Courts have inherent jurisdiction to consolidate suits in appropriate cases, even without the consent of the parties, to avoid multiplicity of suits and the possibility of conflicting decisions, provided there is sufficient similarity and unity of issues in the suits.

Madan Mohan Prasad, J.

1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh consolidating several suits,

2. The petitioner. Messrs. Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd., is the first defendant in Title Suit No. 29 of 1955, in which the State of Bihar is the plaintiff. There are several other suits filed by the State of Bihar against the present petitioner and others. They are Title Suit Nos. 45 of 1960, 16 of 1961 and 65 of 1970. The petitioner is plaintiff in another suit. Title Suit No. 93 of 1964, in which the State of Bihar is the first defendant. There is another suit by the State of Bihar against several companies, other than the petitioner, and Raia Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh, who is the first defendant therein, and that is Title Suit No. 53 of 1954. It appears that petitions were filed by the State of Bihar for consolidation of these suits with the result that one order was passed on the 17th June. 1972 consolidating Title Suits Nos. 16 of 1961 and 53 of 1954 and another order was passed in Title Suit No. 29 of 1955 on the same date by which Title Suit No. 29 of 1955 was consolidated with Title Suits Nos. 53 of 1954, 45 of 1960, 65 of 1970 and 93 of 1964. The result is that all the six suits have been consolidated. The petitioner has come up against the second order mentioned above bearing order No. 222 passed in Title Suit No. 29 of 1955. The petitioner has a grievance against the consolidation of Title Suit No. 29 of 1955, in which it is the first defendant, with Title Suit No. 53 of 1954, to which it is not a party.

3. In support of the present application, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two points; Firstly, that the Court below had no jurisdiction to consolidate the suits, except with the consent of the parties, in the absence of any statutory provision enabling it to do so; and. secondly, that the facts of the two cases, the parties, the Issues arising and the reliefs prayed therein are entirely different from each other, and consequently, even if the learned Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to do so, it was not a fit case for consolidation.

4. With regard to the first point, learned counsel has submitted that, there being no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for consolidation of suits, the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to do so. It is said that, in view of the Evidence Act, the evidence of one suit cannot be treated as evidence in another suit by an order of consolidation, in the absence of any provision to that effect in the Evidence Act itself. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases of Bhopo (Fakirbhai) V/s. Bai Mani (AIR 1961 Guj 92), Satish Chandra Ghosh V/s. Smt. Sarba Mangala Dutta (AIR 1970 Tripura 89) and Hamid V/s. (Maulvi) Abdul Ghani (AIR 1933 Pat 61).

5. In the case of Bhopo Fakirbhai, AIR 1961 Guj 92 (supra), a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court took a view which seems to lend support to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Judge said that an order to treat the evidence in one suit as the evidence in another suit cannot be passed without the consent of the parties in both the suits; and in the absence of any such provision in the Evidence Act, the learned Judge was of the opinion that evidence cannot, and ought not to be heard in common in the suits without the consent of the parties. With great respect. I am unable to concur in the view taken by the learned Judge for reasons which I shall give hereinafter. In the case of Satish Chandra Ghosh (AIR 1970 Tripura 89). the learned Judicial Commissioner of Tripura held that a court can order consolidation of suits in appropriate cases and the basic principles governing consolidation of suits are that there is similarity or identity of the matter in issue in the two suits and that the suits are between the same parties. He further observed that the object of consolidation is to avoid multiplic