Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has brought into focus an important procedural question: can multiple civil suits involving similar parties and issues be heard together to avoid duplication of evidence? The case has sparked discussion over the interpretation of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) and the extent of the court’s inherent powers in consolidating proceedings.
The petitioner had challenged the order of a subordinate court that dismissed an application filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking to consolidate four civil suits pending between the same parties. It was contended that all suits involved similar issues and facts, and their joint trial would prevent duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.
The petitioner argued that the consolidation of suits is a well-recognized judicial practice aimed at avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and ensuring uniform adjudication. It was submitted that the trial court erred in interpreting Section 10 of the CPC as barring such consolidation.
The respondents maintained that the CPC does not specifically provide for clubbing of suits and that Section 10 governs such situations.
The High Court observed that Section 10 CPC deals with the principle of res sub judice, which applies when a subsequent suit between the same parties on the same cause of action must be stayed, but it does not govern the issue of consolidation of suits. The Court clarified that cases can be clubbed together under the court’s inherent powers if common questions of law and fact are involved. Such consolidation is justified to avoid repetitive evidence, conflicting judgments, and unnecessary delays. It was further held that while there is no fixed rule requiring every application for consolidation to be allowed, courts must exercise discretion judiciously based on the circumstances of each case.
The High Court quashed the impugned order of the trial court and revived the petitioner’s application for consolidation. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on its merits.
The Court made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application itself, which must now be decided independently by the trial court after hearing both sides.
Case Title: Hardeep Singh v/s Manohar Lal and others
Case No.: CMPMO No. 325 of 2023
Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ajay Mohan Goel
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Sanjeev Kuthiala and Adv. Tamanna Sharma
Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Sanjeev Sharma
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
