Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)Ganesh Ramchandra Thakur vs Gopal Lakshman Thakur on 27 February, 1942
7. There are some obiter observations on this point in the case of Ganesh Ramchandra v. Gopal Lakshman (1942) 44 Bom. L.R. 819, decided by a Division Bench of this Court. In that matter two suits were filed by one Ganesh Ramchandra and a third suit was filed by the family of Laxman, the brother of Ramchandra. Bach suit was for a declaration of the right of the plaintiff to a half share in certain property alleged to belong to the family of which Ramchandra and Laxman were the members. A contention was taken in the suits filed by Ganesh Ramchandra that Order II, Rule 2 had been infringed. In the judgment of Macklin J. in appeal it is observed (p. 827) :
P.P. Gupta vs East Asiatic Co., Bombay on 21 July, 1959
In the case of P.P. Gupta v. East Asiatic Co. . Dhavan J. observed that the Court had inherent power to consolidate in the interests of justice in appropriate cases different suits between the same parties in which the matter in issue is substantially the same. He observes that suits may be consolidated for a variety of reasons as for example when the dispute arises out of the same transaction between the parties each side accusing" the other of breach of agreement, but not all the issues are identical, nor are the reliefs.
Harinarain Choudhary And Ors. vs Ram Asish Singh And Ors. on 8 December, 1955
In the case of Harinarain v. Ram Asish , another single Judge of the Patna High Court, Raj Kishore Prasad J. held that the Court has inherent power ex debito justitiae to consolidate suits where it is in the ends of justice to do so to avoid needless expense and inconvenience to parties. In deciding whether two or more suits should be consolidated or not, the whole question is whether or not, in the long run it will be expeditious and advantageous to all concerned to have the two suits tried together as analogous cases. Where it appears that there is sufficient unity, or similarity in the matter in issue in the suits or that the determination of the suits rests mainly on a common question, it is convenient to have them tried as analogous cases. The inherent power o£ Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to consolidate suits is exercisable even without the consent of parties. The convenience of the parties in the conduct of litigation is certainly a relevant consideration and it is perhaps not too much to say that it is the basis of nearly all statutory jurisdiction on the civil side. In that case the defendants in three suits were the same but the plaintiffs were different and some evidence was recorded and documents exhibited in one suit before the consolidation. The learned Judge observed that such evidence and documents would not be binding on the plaintiffs in the other suits as they were not parties to the suit, unless such plaintiffs agreed that such evidence oral and documentary should be read at the hearing of the three suits.
1