- (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the defendant against the common order of the Additional Munsif No. 2, Bhilwara dated February 3,1989 by which he has rejected all the four applications moved in the four civil suits filed against him for the recovery of certain amounts on the basis of dishonoured cheques issued by him to the plaintiffs Madanlal and Krishna Gopal (two cheques to each). The necessary particulars of these suits are given in the below Noted table : TABLE No. of the suit year Name ofplaintiff claimed of the cheques Amount Particulars State of of the suit the plaintiff claimed of the cheque the suit 88/83 Madanlal Rs. 2800/- for Rs. 2040/- Evidence of both (2/88) dt.9.3.80 dishonoured has been closed. on 11 .6.1989. 146/83 Madanlal Rs. 2040/- for Rs. 1500/- Plaintiff has closed dt. 27.4.1980 his evidence. dishonoured Defendants has on 11.6.1990 examined his witness Shankar lal D.W.I. 143/83 Krishna Rs. 1360/- for Rs. 1000 Plaintiff has clossed Gopal dt. 5.5.1980 his evidence. dishonoured Defendant on 6.11.1980 has examined himself and Shankerlal D.W.2. 133/83 Krishna Rs. 2100/- for Rs. 1545/- Plaintiff closed his (3/88) Gopal dt. 21.4.1980 evidence on 19.4.88. Dishonoured Defendant's on 11.6.1980 evidence was closed on 17.2.1989. TABLE END
(2.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant- petitioner Partap Singh that the learned trial Court has acted with material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction in not consolidating the four suits. He further contended that the facts and circumstances of all the four suits are almost similar, the consolidation of the suits would go a long way in their expeditious disposal and it would reduce the inconvenience and expenses of both the parties. He also contended that the authority of this court given in Jai Kishan v. Bajranglal ILR (11) Raj. 1173, was placed before the trial Court and it was not even considered. He lastly contended that there are chances of being given conflicing judgments. He also relied upon Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others, 1973 AIR(Pat) 340
(3.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioners duly supported the order under challenge. He contended that the suits are pending since the year 1983, the applications for consolidation of the suits were moved to further delay the disposal and no explanation has been given for the inordinate delay of six years in moving the application for the consolidation of the suits. He further contended that the defendant-petitioner now wants consolidation of the four suits as his evidence has been closed in two suits. He lastly contended that there is no question of conflicting judgments as suits are based on different dishonoured cheques, the amounts are different in all the four suits and the plaintiffs are different in two suits each. He relied upon Bhopo Fakirbhai and another v. Bai Mini A. 1. Rule 1961 Guj. 92 and S. S. Bhagvan Singh and others v. Smt. Sharda Bai, 1990 AIR(Kar) 222.;