Mahamad Fazal…Plaintiff v. Mahkumar Mahton…Defendant Opposite Party.

Coutts, J.:— This is an application in revision against an order of the bub. Judge of Patna consolidating two suits. It is not contended that the learned Sub. Judge had no jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC to consolidate the suits, and that he has such jurisdiction has been held not only by this Court but in other High Courts in India, and I may refer particularly to the case of Kali Charan Dutt v. Manodabala Dasi(1) where the matter was very fully considered.

2. It is contended, however, that the jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC cannot be exercised without the consent of parties.

3. No authority has been adduced in support of this contention and I am unable to accept it. It seems clear that if the Court has jurisdiction to consolidate under Section 151 of the CPC it must have that jurisdiction without the consent of parties. If this were not so, it would not have inherent jurisdiction to consolidate at all, for consent of parties cannot confer a jurisdiction that does not exist.

4. It is not for us in revision to consider whether in this particular case consolidation should have been allowed or not, but I may remark that in my opinion, the Court has exercised the jurisdiction wisely.

5. I would accordingly dismiss this application with costs. Hearing fee three gold mohurs.

6. Das, J.:— I agree.

7. Application dismissed.