The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to consolidate civil suits pertaining to the same property and the discretion to allow the evidence in the first suit to be read in the second one.

Harjit Singh Bedi, J.

1. The present petition is directed against the order of the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Amritsar, whereby the application dated February 12, 1990, filed under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, praying that the two suits pending between the parties be consolidated, has been dismissed.

2. The facts, as given in the course of the hearing of the case, are that a suit was filed by the petitioner on July 16, 1985 seeking to evict the respondent-tenant from the premises in dispute and also to seek the payment of arrears of mesne profits for use and occupation thereof. While the first suit was yet pending, the petitioner filed another suit for the recovery of Rs. 2900/- as compensation for use and occupation of the same premises for the period 29.6.1985 to 28.11.1987. By the order of the District Judge, Amritsar, the first suit was ordered to be transferred to the Court of Shri M.L. Sarpal, Additional Senior Sub Judge, Amritsar, wherein the second suit was pending in view of the identity of the subject-matter and in the face of the same evidence that was required to be led in both cases and also to obviate the wastage of time and expense to the parties. It was in this situation that the application dated 12.2.1990 was made that both the suits be consolidated so that the evidence recorded in the first suit could be read in the second one. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on the short ground that the first suit was an ejectment application under the Rent Act, whereas the subsequent matter was a civil suit for the recovery of Rs. 2900/- for use and occupation of the premises in dispute. The trial Court, therefore, found that as the issues in both the cases were different and as in the first matter the relationship of landlord and tenant was in issue, it would be improper to consolidate the two proceedings.

3. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that that the basic fallacy in the reasoning of the trial Court was that it had erroneously recorded that the first suit was a matter under the Rent Act, whereas, in fact, this is not the correct position. He has stated that both the suits were civil suits - the first one was an ejectment application and for recovery of certain amounts towards arrears of rent etc. and the second one was exclusively a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2900/- for use and occupation/mesne profits of the same premises. The learned counsel asserted that the error which the trial Court had committed needed to be rectified. This factual position has not been controverted by Mr. Premjit Kalia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. He has, however, urged that in case the evidence in the first suit, which has already been recorded, was to be read in the second suit, he should be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses once again.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find merit in this petition. The very basis of the order of the learned trial Court is erroneous inasmuch as that both the matters pending before him are civil suits pertaining to the same property and the issues are substantially similar. It was in this situation that the District Judge, Amritsar, had directed that the suits be heard by the same Court. The petition is, therefore, allowed and a direction is issued to the trial Court to consolidate the two suits and to ensure that the evidence in the first suit is read in the second one as well. It is further directed that in case the respondent wishes to cross-examine any witness, who has already been so examined, he would be entitled to do so. As the dispute between the parties relates to the year 1987, it is directed that the matter be disposed of within a period of six months. No costs.Revision allowed.