Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Inherent Power of the Court to consolidate two or more suits to avoid multiplicity of cases

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in SPAREBANKEN SOGN OG FJORDANE Vs SPENCE AND CO has discussed the inherent powers of  the Court to consolidate two or more cases so as to avoid multiplicity of cases, especially when no purpose will be served when all the cases are tried simultaneously. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted herein under;

“15. As rightly submitted by the learned Counsel, Mr.B. Giridhara Rao, no purpose would be served by prosecuting the suit in C.S.No.387 of 2011 and obtaining a decree and thereafter, approaching the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court in Admiralty Suit No.24 of 2011 by making an application to adjudicate upon the claim culminated by a decree for the purpose of priorities and on the other hand, the first respondent/plaintiff can straightaway file his claim and get the claim adjudicated and also apply for priorities after adjudication of the claim by filing necessary application before the Bombay High Court.

16. In the judgment reported in AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1687 supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court has got power to consolidate two suits for the purpose of preventing the abuse of process of Court and to meet the ends of justice. In this case, admittedly, the first respondent/plaintiff got himself impleaded in Admiralty Suit No.24 of 2011 and the first respondent/plaintiff can very well prove his claim against the sale proceeds in Admiralty Suit No.24 of 2011 and for that purpose, there is no need to obtain decree in C.S.No.387 of 2011. Even after obtaining the decree, he has to prove his priorities by getting adjudication and that process can be shortened by approaching Bombay High Court by filing Application under Rule 951 of the Original Side Rules of the Bombay High Court for adjudication of his claim made in C.S.No.387 of 2011 and obtain an order of adjudication regarding priorities. By approaching Bombay High Court, parties are relieved of the need of adducing the same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice over in the two suits at two different trials. That would also avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the judgment reported in AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 2093 supra that the Courts have all the necessary powers under Section 151 CPC to make a suitable order to prevent the abuse of the process of Court unless the exercise of such power is expressly prohibited by any other provisions of the Code. Further, the Court can take into consideration the subsequent events with regard to the relief sought. Having regard to the order passed in Appeal No.679 of 2012 in Notice of Motion No.558 of 2012 in Admiralty Suit No.24 of 2011 dated 30.11.2012, the applicant is justified in asking for such a prayer and that would also prevent the multiplicity of proceedings and that would also help the first respondent/plaintiff to prove his claim in a better way.

17. Though it is open to the applicant to move the Hon'ble Supreme Court for transfer of C.S.No.387 of 2011 on the file of this Court to the file of the Original Side of the Bombay High Court, to be tried along with Admiralty Suit No.24 of 2011, having regard to the fact that the first respondent was already impleaded as one of the parties in Admiralty Suit No.24 of 2011, and having regard to the provision of Rule 951 of the Original Side Rules of the Bombay High Court, multiplicity of proceedings can also be avoided by directing the first respondent / plaintiff in C.S.No.387 of 2011 to pursue his remedy in Admiralty Suit No.24 of 2011 and till such time, the suit in C.S.No.387 of 2011 can be stayed.”