H HAMID Vs. (MAULVI) ABDUL GHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the litigation out of which these applications arise was formerly District Engineer under the Gaya District Board from which past he was dismissed in 1930. The Special Officer in charge of the District Board drew up at least three charges against the District Engineer, one of which was of fraud on the Board in connection with the sale of some Manila rope ostensibly purchased from Abdul Ghani. In the departmental proceedings this Abdul Gani appears to have made statements supporting the charge and inculpating the District Engineer. The late District Engineer has now instituted two suits at Gaya.

(2.) In the first suit he claims from the Special Officer and the District Board damages for wrongful dismissal and for libel. In the second suit he claims from Abdul Ghani damages for libel. At the instance of Abdul Ghani the two suits were consolidated without notice to the Special Officer or to the District Board, who protested when they learnt what had happened; but the learned Subordinate Judge found that the balance of convenience lay in trying the two suits together and declined to rescind his order of consolidation. The District Board and the Special Officer have now applied for revision of that order.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioners it is argued that there is no sufficient unity or similarity in the matters in issue in the two suits to warrant their consolidation against the wishes of every party except Abdul Ghani, since neither the plaintiff, nor the District Board nor the Special. Officer consent to the consolidation. The two suits have this in common, that it may be necessary in each suit to consider evidence affecting the transaction regarding the Manila rope, though it does not appear that, even on this issue the position of the defendants in the two suits is exactly the same. Abdul Ghani has no concern with the other issues in the suit against the District Board.