Mehanga Singh vs Banta Singh and others

Prem Chand Pandit, J.—This order will dispose of four connected Civil Revision petitions Nos. 147 and 634 to 636 of 1971. They arise out of four applications filed u/s 151, Code of Civil Procedure, in four suits, for the purpose of consolidating all of them. These applications had been dismissed by the trial Judge and against that order these revisions have been filed.

It appears that on the evening of 19th December, 1966, an occurrence took place, in which an attack was made on a jeep by certain persons with the intention of murdering one Chanchal Singh, the Managing Director of the Hoshiarpur Express Transport Company Limited. This incident occurred within the jurisdiction of the Police Station, Mihalpur, District Hoshiarpur. Since by chance, Chanchal Singh was not in the jeep at that time, in his place, Tirath Singh and Jaswant Singh were killed, while Sakhi Chand and Mehnga Singh, who were accompanying them, injured, as a result of gunshots fired by the assailants. It is said that for this offence the police put up five persons, namely, Piara Singh, Banta Singh, Thakar Singh, Sher Singh, and Naranjan Singh, for trial. Out of them, all, except Piara Singh, were acquitted. Subsequently, four separate suits were brought by the heirs of the deceased, Sakhi Chand and Mehnga Singh for recovery of damages on account of the loss due to the death of Tirath Singh and Jaswant Singh and also the injuries suffered by Sakhi Chand and Mehnga Singh. All these suits are pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, at Hoshiarpur. The plaintiffs, in these cases, filed the above mentioned applications on the ground that the suits be consolidated so that the entire evidence re recorded in only one of them.

It is common ground that the defendants in all these suits are the same. It is obvious that the cause of action to the plaintiffs arose out of the same occurrence. Majore portion of the evidence, therefore, is going to be the same. It is the common case of the parties that a large number of witnesses have to be examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and out of them quite a few are Government officials, who are posted at different places. If the suits are not consolidated it is plain that all of them will have to be examined, separately in the four suits. That will necessarily cause inconvenience to them and result in avoidable extra expense and botheration to the plaintiffs. I am further of the view that it will be in the interest of the defendants as well, if the suits are consolidated, because otherwise they will also be put to lot of expense and trouble. The trial Judge was in error in holding that the suits could not be consolidated without the consent of all the parties. It is true that there is no specific provision of law in the CPC for making the order regarding the consolidation of suits. Such an order can, however, be passed in exercise of the inherent powers of the Court under the provisions of section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, in the interest of justice, if the Court be of the view that unnecessary expense and inconvenience and harassment to the parties can be avoided by making it. This can be done irrespective of the fact whether or not all the parties agree to such an order being made. As I have already said, it would be in the interest of both the plaintiffs and the defendants in this case, if all the suits are tried together at one place.

It may be pointed out that the learned counsel for Naranjan Singh, defendant respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Civil Revisions Nos. 634 to 636 of 1971 were barred by limitation.

It is correct that they had been filed beyond time, but applications u/s 5 of the Limitation Act have been made in all of them. The reason given for condoning the delay was that the petitioners were advised that the revision petition, which, had admittedly, been filed within limitation in the connected suit, would be enough to get rid of the impugned order and no separate revision petitions need be filed in other suits. There is some merit in this ground, because the incident being one, out of which all these suits have arisen, somebody could have bona fide advised them to go up in revision in one case only. I further notice that in two cases the petitioners are the poor widows of the deceased, who had been shot at and they are wanting compensation on account of the murder of their husbands. Under all these circumstances, I will grant the applications u/s 5 of the Limitation Act and extend the period of limitation.

In view of what has been said above, I will accept these petitions set aside the orders under revision and direct that all these suits be consolidated. In the circumstances of this case, however, there will be no order as to costs. Parties have been directed to appear before the trial Judge on 4th December, 1972, for further proceedings in the cases.