PARIMI VENKATA RAO Vs. P A V V T JAGAPATHIRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision arises against an order passed u/s. 151 CPC to consolidate the suits, O.S. Nos. 54/81, 22/79, 90/79, 52/81 and 53/81. The suits are based on promissory notes. The plaintiffs are different, but the defendant is common in all these suits. In the defence, he raised the plea of discharge, arrangement, etc., and ultimately he pleaded that he is a small farmer, entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Act 7 of 1977. He filed an application u/s 24 CPC before the Dist. Court which was allowed, and there a request was made to consolidate all the suits. The Dist. Court held that, "it is for the Subordidate Judge to decide upon the desirability or otherwise of having joint trial of all the suits." In view of this order, an application was filed before the lower Court for consolidation of the suits. The application was dismissed by the lower court holding that though it is advantageous to the defendant, it is disadvantageous to the plaintiff since the causes of action are different.

(2.) In this revision Sri Jagannadha Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the main defence, viz., that the petitioner is a small farmer entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Act 7 of 1977 is common in all the suits, it is redundant to examine the witnesses in all the suits in proof of that though he has taken other defences. In view of these facts, the lower Court has committed material irregularity in exercise pf the jurisdiction in refusing to consolidate all the suits to have a joint trial. I find considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel.

(3.) Under Sec. 151 CPC Court has inherent power in the absence of a specific embargo to meet in the ends of justice to pass such orders as are expedient. In this case, admittedly the defendant is common in all the mils. Though he raised several defences, one of the formidable defence open to him is that he is a small farmer entitled to the benefit of Act 7 of 1977. That evidence has to be let in all the cases if separate trial is ordered. With a view to avoid that, he filed the present application for consolidation. No doubt, the causes of action are different and the defence of the defendant in all the suits is to some extent overlapping. Yet, the nature of (be suits is same and the defendant is common and the main evidence is also common in all the suits. Therefore, in the interests of justice, it is expedient to order joint trial in exercise of the inherent power u/s 151 CPC. Accordingly J hold that the petition is to be allowed and the lower Court has committed material irregularity in not considering these aspects but went into an irrelevant ground. The CRP is accordingly allowed and there shall be a joint trial of all the suits. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.