DOHARA BEEVI Vs. BHASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the decree holder in two suits. In both these suits the judgment debtors are the same. The decrees are for arrears of rent for different periods for the same building, let out to the Ist judgment debtor. In execution the decree holder sought to consolidate the petitions for execution of the two decrees. By the order impugned in this CRP. the lower court allowed that petition. The only contention on behalf of the Ist judgment debtor, who is the revision petitioner, is that the execution court has no jurisdiction to order consolidation of two execution petitions.

(2.) It is well settled that it is the duty of the court executing the decree to aid the decree holder in realising the amount due under the decree, and it should therefore offer him all possible and reasonable facilities for realising the decretal amount in as short a time as possible - see Maharaj Bahadu v. Mafizuddin Chowdhry (AIR 1936 Calcutta 238) and Damodar Das v. Bindeshwari Singh (AIR 1936 Patna 76).

(3.) There is no specific provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for consolidation of different proceedings. However, it has been held that the court has inherent power to consolidate suits and appeals, as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the Court, (see In re, G. Krishnayachandrulu, AIR 1930 Mad. 376 F. B. at Page 379). S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure indicates that the court has power to make such orders as may be necessary under its inherent power to do real and substantial justice. The contention of Sri B. Krishnamoni learned counsel for the revision petitioner judgment debtor, is that consolidation of execution petitions cannot be ordered under the inherent power of court. Learned counsel for the respondent decree holder, Sri C. S Narayanan, on the other hand contended that the court has inherent power to order consolidation of execution petitions.