BOKARO AND RAMGUR LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh consolidating several suits,

(2.) The petitioner. Messrs. Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd., is the first defendant in Title Suit No. 29 of 1955, in which the State of Bihar is the plaintiff. There are several other suits filed by the State of Bihar against the present petitioner and others. They are Title Suit Nos. 45 of 1960, 16 of 1961 and 65 of 1970. The petitioner is plaintiff in another suit. Title Suit No. 93 of 1964, in which the State of Bihar is the first defendant. There is another suit by the State of Bihar against several companies, other than the petitioner, and Raia Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh, who is the first defendant therein, and that is Title Suit No. 53 of 1954. It appears that petitions were filed by the State of Bihar for consolidation of these suits with the result that one order was passed on the 17th June. 1972 consolidating Title Suits Nos. 16 of 1961 and 53 of 1954 and another order was passed in Title Suit No. 29 of 1955 on the same date by which Title Suit No. 29 of 1955 was consolidated with Title Suits Nos. 53 of 1954, 45 of 1960, 65 of 1970 and 93 of 1964. The result is that all the six suits have been consolidated. The petitioner has come up against the second order mentioned above bearing order No. 222 passed in Title Suit No. 29 of 1955. The petitioner has a grievance against the consolidation of Title Suit No. 29 of 1955, in which it is the first defendant, with Title Suit No. 53 of 1954, to which it is not a party.

(3.) In support of the present application, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two points; Firstly, that the Court below had no jurisdiction to consolidate the suits, except with the consent of the parties, in the absence of any statutory provision enabling it to do so; and. secondly, that the facts of the two cases, the parties, the Issues arising and the reliefs prayed therein are entirely different from each other, and consequently, even if the learned Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to do so, it was not a fit case for consolidation.