The main legal point established in the judgment is the inherent power of civil courts to consolidate civil suits, the object of consolidation, and the circumstances for consolidating civil suits.

PREM SHANKER ASOPA, J.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18. 07. 2005 (Annexure-3) passed in Civil Suit No. 96/2001 pending before the additional District Judge, Sikar whereby the additional District Judge refused to consolidate the four civil suits for recovery of money on the ground that the plaintiffs are different, cause of actions and amount are different and further merely because the defendant is common a such cases cannot be consolidated. It was also observed that in Section 10, CPC there is no provision of conslidation nor in any other provision of CPC such cases can be consolidated.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed four separate civil suits against petitioners for recovery of different amount which become due on different dates against petitioners-defendants, and all the civil suits are pending before Additional District and Sessions Judge, sikar. The details of the suits number and amount is as under:- S. No. Title of suit No. of suit Amount recoverable

1. Vinod Kumar Sharda vs. Anurag & Company 93/2001 4,30,254/-

2. Arun Kumar vs. Anurag & Company 36/2001 (95/2001) 2,75,935/-

3. Sanjay Kumar Sharda vs. Anurag & Company 37/2001 (96/2001) 3,40,274/-

4. Parwati Devi Sharda vs. Anurag & Company 94/2001 2,12,725/-

( 3 ) THE petitioners have filed written statements in all the aforesaid civil suit in which the evidence of the respondents-plaintiffs have been completed and the cases are fixed for the evidence of the petitioners-defendants.

( 4 ) AN application under Section 10 read with 151, CPC was filed in Civil Suit No. 96/2001 on or about on 04. 12. 2004 on the ground that the defendants in all civil suits are common, subject matter is same and evidence of the defendant (petitioner) will be identical in all the four suits and in case all the suits are tried separately then there is possibility of conflicting findings/judgments. Therefore, it is in the interest of justice and to avoid the complications of separate trials, the suits may be consolidated. The relevant para of the application is reproduced hereunder:-

( 5 ) IN reply to the aforesaid application filed by the petitioners-defendants and respondent-plaintiff submitted that it is wrong to say that all the defendants are common in the said civil suits. In Civil Suit No. 94/2001 defendants are not common and there is no possibility of conflicting judgments as the respondents-plaintiffs have no objection if all the suits are heard simultaneously. The relevant portion of reply filed by the respondents-plaintiffs reads as under:-

( 6 ) IN reply some additional objections were also raised which reads as under:-

( 7 ) THE admitted facts are that all the four civil suits are pending in the Court of Additional District Judge no. 1, Sikar and are going on in evidence of defendant and further the respondents-plaintiffs have no objection for hearing of suits simultaneously.

( 8 ) ON 18. 07. 2005 the Additional District judge, Sikar rejected the application for consolidation on the ground that when the plaintiffs are different in all the four civil suits, cause of actions are different and amounts are different and further merely because defendants are common, such civil suits cannot be consolidated as there is no such provision in Section 10, CPC or any other provisions of CPC to consolidate such civil suits. Therefore, the said application was dismissed. The order dated 18. 07. 2005 is reproduced hereunder:-

( 9 ) THIS Court way back, in 1959 in a case reported in Hans Raj v. Firm Hazari Mal Dipa considering the conflicting judgments of various high Courts, has agreed with the view of calcutta and Allahabad High Courts that a civil court is having inherent power to consolidate the civil suits. Again this Court in a case reported in Jai Kishan v. Bajranglal has held that in Code of Civil Procedure there is no specific provision for consoli