Himachal Pradesh High Court
Prem Lal vs . Ntp Ltd. And Another on 27 August, 2024
Prem Lal Vs. NTP Ltd. and another .
Civil Suit No. 29 of 2020 Reserved on : 1.8.2024 27.08.2024 Present: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar, Advocate, for the applicant/plaintiff.
r through Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate, video-conferencing and Mr. Vedhant Ranta, Advocate, in person before the Court for non-applicants/ defendants.
OMP No. 141 of 2024 The applicant/plaintiff has filed the present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for consolidation of the present suit with another suit titled Keshav Ram and others Vs. NTPC and another bearing Civil Suit No. 44 of 2020. It has been asserted that the plaintiffs' property in both suits was in danger of being flooded by the Kol Dam Reservoir. The defendants constructed protection walls in the proximity of the plaintiffs' property. The plaintiffs made repeated requests to the defendants to construct protection walls in front of their property to ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2024 20:35:44 :::CIS protect it from damage but the defendants failed to .
take any action. The plaintiffs raised protection walls to save their property from being flooded.
The plaintiffs filed civil suits for recovery of the money spent on the construction of the protection walls and damages for non-performance of the defendants' duties. The plaintiffs have relied upon several documents to prove the imminent danger to their property. If the civil suits are tried separately, the documents will have to be proved separately. The defendants are common and they have taken a common stand that there was no danger to the plaintiffs' property. Repetition of evidence can be avoided by consolidating the civil suits. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the civil suit be consolidated.
2. The application is opposed by filing a reply denying the contents of the application, however, it was not specifically denied that civil suits were primarily filed on the same grounds seeking recovery. It was asserted that the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2024 20:35:44 :::CIS allegations were not sufficient for the .
consolidation of the suits. The facts in the suits are not similar. The plaintiffs filed two different suits deliberately and they cannot seek the consolidation of the suit. The applicants/plaintiffs cannot recover the money from the non-applicants/defendants.
r Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed.
3. I have heard Mr Rajesh Maniktala, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr Dinkar Bhaskar, learned counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs and Mr Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vedhant Ranta, learned counsel for the non-applicants/ defendants.
4. Mr. Rajesh Maniktala, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs submitted that the nature of the two suits is similar. The applicants/plaintiffs have taken almost similar pleas in two civil suits and common documents have been relied on by the applicants/plaintiffs.
Both the suits involve common questions and ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2024 20:35:44 :::CIS should be consolidated to avoid the wastage of .
time of the Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the suit be ordered to be consolidated. He relied upon the judgments of Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement, (2004) 3 SCC 85, Prem Lala Nahata v.
Chandi Prasad Sikaria (2007) 2 SCC 551 and Mahalaxmi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel, (2013) 4 SCC 404 in support of his submission.
5. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the non-applicants/respondents submitted that the nature of the two suits is different. No common question arises in the suits.
Therefore, he prayed that the present application be dismissed.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
7. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chitivalasa Jute Mills (supra) that the Court has inherent power to consolidate the ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2024 20:35:44 :::CIS suits to relieve the parties of the need to adduce the .
same or similar evidence. It was observed: -
"12....The Code of Civil Procedure does not specifically speak of consolidation of suits but the same can be done under the inherent powers of the court flowing from Section 151 CPC. Unless specifically prohibited, the civil court has inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. r Consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from a multiplicity of proceedings, delays and expenses. Complete or even substantial and sufficient similarity of the issues arising for decision in two suits enables the two suits being consolidated for trial and decision. The parties are relieved of the need of adducing the same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice over in the two suits at two different trials. The evidence having been recorded, common arguments need to be addressed followed by one common judgment. However, as the suits are two, the court may, based on the common judgment, draw two different decrees or one common decree to be placed on the record of the two suits..."
8. Similarly, it was held in Mahalaxmi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. (supra) that the purpose of consolidation of the suits is to save costs, time and effort. It was observed: -
"45... There is no specific provision in CPC for consolidation of suits. Such a power has ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2024 20:35:44 :::CIS to be exercised only under Section 151 CPC. The purpose of consolidation of suits is to .
save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action.
Consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from a multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses and the parties are relieved of the need of adducing the same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice over in the two suits at two different trials. Reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in Prem Lala Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria [(2007) 2 SCC 551."
9. Similarly, it was held in Ram Prakash Agarwal v. Gopi Krishan, (2013) 11 SCC 296 that inherent power under Section 151 of CPC can be exercised to consolidate the suit. It was observed: -
"13. Section 151 CPC is not a substantive provision that confers the right to get any relief of any kind. It is a mere procedural provision which enables a party to have the proceedings of a pending suit conducted in a manner that is consistent with justice and equity. The court can do justice between the parties before it. Similarly, inherent powers cannot be used to re-open settled matters. The inherent powers of the Court must, to that extent, be regarded as abrogated by the legislature. A provision barring the exercise of inherent power need not be express, it may even be implied. Inherent power cannot be used to restrain the execution of a decree at the instance of one who was not a party to suit. Such power is absolutely essential for securing the ends ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2024 20:35:44 :::CIS of justice, and to overcome the failure of justice. The Court under Section 151 CPC .
may adopt any procedure to do justice unless the same is expressly prohibited.
14. The consolidation of suits has not been provided for under any of the provisions of the Code unless there is a State amendment in this regard. Thus, the same can be done in the exercise of the powers under Section 151 CPC, where a common question of fact and law arise therein, and the same must also not be a case of misjoinder of parties. The non-consolidation of two or more suits is likely to lead to a multiplicity of suits being filed, leaving the door open for conflicting decisions on the same issue, which may be common to the two or more suits that are sought to be consolidated.
Non-consolidation may, therefore, prejudice a party, or result in the failure of justice. Inherent powers may be exercised ex debito justitiae in those cases, where there is no express provision in CPC. The said powers cannot be exercised in contravention of, or conflict with, or upon ignoring express and specific provisions of the law. [See B.V. Patankar v. C.G. Sastry [AIR 1961 SC 272], Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi [(2004) 12 SCC 713: AIR 2004 SC 4096], Jet Ply Wood (P) Ltd. v. Madhukar Nowlakha [(2006) 3 SCC 699: AIR 2006 SC 1260], SBI v. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. [(2007) 1 SCC 97], State of Haryana v. Babu Singh [(2008) 2 SCC 85 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 468 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 386], Durgesh Sharma v. Jayshree [(2008) 9 SCC 648: AIR 2009 SC 285], Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corpn. [(2009) 8 SCC 646 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 481] and Rajendra Prasad Gupta v. Prakash Chandra Mishra [(2011) 2 SCC 705 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 548: AIR 2011 SC 1137] .] ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2024 20:35:44 :::CIS
10. It is apparent from the judgments of the .
Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Court can order consolidation of the suits to avoid the multiplicity of litigation and to save the time of the Court.
11. In the present case, two suits have been filed with similar allegations that the defendants constructed the Kol Dam Hydro Electric Project on river Sutlej having a water reservoir. The water in the reservoir was filled more than the proposed capacity. The water submerged the adjacent areas and affected the plaintiffs' land. The plaintiffs had to take preventive steps to protect their property.
They constructed protection walls to protect their property from inundation. Hence, the plaintiffs filed civil suits for recovery of the expenses incurred by them and for seeking damages.
12. It is apparent from the perusal of the plaints in two suits that both of them are based upon the construction of the Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project and the filling of the reservoir. Hence, common evidence shall be required to be led in both the suits and the time of ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2024 20:35:44 :::CIS the Court can be saved if the suits are consolidated .
for the trial.
13. So far as the submission regarding the maintainability of the suits is concerned, it has nothing to do with the consolidation of the suits. It would be open for the defendants to take all the pleas as are available to them during the evidence and after the conclusion of the evidence. Hence, the plea of the defendants cannot be used to deny the consolidation of the suits.
14. Consequently, the present application is allowed and the suits are ordered to be consolidated.
15. The present application stands disposed of.
Civil Suit No. 29 of 2020List the matter for settlement of issues on 10.9.2024. Draft issues be filed on or before the date fixed.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge ___August, 2024 (Chander) ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2024 20:35:44 :::CIS