The court has the power to consolidate suits under Order 4-A of the CPC if it finds it expedient in the interest of justice to direct a joint trial, and all such proceedings can be decided upon the evidence recorded in all or any such proceedings.

( 1 ) THIS is a tenants revision directed against the order dated 1-2-1984 recorded by Sri D. C. Srivastava, learned II Addl. District Judge, Kanpur in SCC suit No. 97 of 1982 who rejected the application of revisionist paper No. 113-C, under sections 10 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the suit till the disposal of the earlier suit No. 917 of 1981.

( 2 ) SUIT No. 917 of 1981 was filed by the revisionist against the landlord- opposite parties for declaration and perpetual injunction restraining the opposite parties from ejecting the revisionist and declaring him to be the tenant of the disputed premises.

( 3 ) THE defence in the earlier suit filed on regular side in the Court of Munsif city. Kanpur was that revisionist was a Thckedar and not tenant.

( 4 ) SCC Suit No. 97 was filed subsequently by the opposite parties in the Court of District Judge, Kanpur for ejectment and recovery of dues with the allegations that revisionist was a Thekedar and the Theka period had expired and so the revisionist is liable in ejectment It was further pleaded in the alternative that in case the revisionist was held to be tenant of the same he was a defaulter in payment of rent and so was liable to ejectment.

( 5 ) BOTH these suits were transferred to the teamed trial Judge for a simultaneous trial on the application of opposite parties Annexure CA1 to the counter-affidavit. The order of transfer is Annexure CA2 to the same affidavit and reads as below :-

"the application is allowed. Original suit No. 917 of 1981 is recalled from the Court of the VIII Addl Munsit and transferred to the Court of second Additional District Judge, Kanpur for disposal according to law. Sd/- District Judge Kanpur. 24-9-83. "

( 6 ) LEARNED trial Judge in the impugned order found that in the interest of justice simultaneous decision of both the suits was expedient. It would avoid any overlapping of findings also.

( 7 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record

( 8 ) ON behalf of revisionist my attention was invited to Section 10 of the Code of civil Procedure which provides for stay of suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. There is no dispute on the point that both the parties in both the suits are same and the question of status of revisionist is directly and substantially in issue in both the suits. Thus it was pressed that simultaneous disposal of the suit was inexpedient The suit on S. C. C side shall be disposed of in a summary fashion while the suit on the regular side has to be disposed of after framing proper issues and after deduction of evidence at length.

( 9 ) IN this connection reliance was placed upon Sheikh Mohammad Yasin v. Sheikh Md. Abdur Razzaque, reported in AIR 1954 Patna 10 which posited:-

"but in a matter which is not covered by Section 10 or by any other express provision of the Civil Procedure Code, it is competent for a court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to do that justice between the parties which is warranted under the circumstances and which the necessities of a particular case require. (1906) ILR 33 Cal 927 Ref. (para 4 ). Held that the justice of the case required that the Small Cause Court suit in question should be stayed pending the disposal of the second appeal in the High Court under Section 151 Civil P. C. Case law referred. "

( 10 ) IT appears that in that case Second Appeal No. 1545 of 1951 which was an offshoot of a small cause court suit brought by the landlord for recovery of house rent from the petitioner was pending when the subsequent suit was filed on small Cause Court side being suit No. 107/93 of 1951. There was a prayer for stay of this suit under Section 10 C. P. C till the disposal of the Second Appeal aforesaid. That prayer was allowed.

( 11 ) THE next authority relied upon by learned Advocate for revisionist has been reported in Ram Narain v. Ram Swarup, AI