ORDER
Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. Respondent herein is the Plaintiff is O.S.Nos. 464/83 and 372/88 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kakinada. Originally, the respondent filed O.S.No. 178/83 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif’s Court, Kakinada for declaration of his fishing rights in Chintalacheruvu and consequently to restrain the defendants therein from interfering with the said rights. A temporary injunction was also obtained by the respondent-plaintiff restraining the defendants therein from obstructing him from catching fish. It is under the background that the defendants therein have obstructed the plaintiff from catching fish and thereby caused damages to the tune of Rs. 60,000/-, the respondent-Plaintiff filed O.S.No. 464/83 before the Principal Subordinate Judge’s Court, Kakinada against the defendants therein for recovery of the said damages. Later on, he filed O.P.No. 174/88 before the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada for transferring O.S.No. 178 /83 to the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Kakinada where O.S.No. 464/83 was pending and sought indulgence of the Court for trying the suits together. Pursuant to the transfer order, the suit was re-numbered as O.S.No. 372/88.
2. It is seen that the learned III Additional District Judge while passing order in O.P.No. 174/88 observed that the matters could be tried together by one and the same court in order to avoid conflicting judgments. The learned District Judge further observed that whether all the matters will be clubbed together or may be tried separately and simultaneously, is the matter to be decided by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kakinada. Under this background, the respondentplaintiff filed I.A.No. 3341/89 in O.S.No. 464/83 praying for clubbing both the suits, recording common evidence and pronouncing common judgment. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge by order dated 14-2-1990 has allowed I.A.No. 3341/89 and directed clubbing of the suits together, recording common evidence and passing common judgment in both the suits. As against this order, the present revision petition is filed by defendant No. 14 in O.S.No. 464/83. 83.
3. Sri P. Venkataramana Sarma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, has contended that in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and conflicting decisions, it is better the suits could be clubbed together, common evidence could be recorded and common judgment could be pronounced and, therefore, he justified the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in I.A.No. 3341/89. Sri C. Subba Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, who is defendant No. 14 in O.S.No. 464/83, has, on the contrary, contended that these suits cannot be tried together inasmuch as the first suit – O.S.No. 372/88 – is filed by the respondent herein for declaration of his fishing rights in Chintalacheruvu and for a consequential relief of res training the defendants therein from interfering with the said rights, whereas O.S.No. 464/83 is filed for recovery of damages said to have been caused by the defendants therein. He further contended that the first suit is for a different relief, that is to say, for a declaration and the second suit is for damages, it is admitted that the plaintiff and some of the defendants in both the suits are common and some of the defendants are strangers. It is under this background, Sri Subba Rao contended that the respondent herein has to first establish his rights in O.S.No. 372/88 and secondly the extent of damages said to have been caused by each of the defendants in O.S.No. 464/83 has to be separately assessed. He has further contended that some of the defendants are admittedly different and, therefore, the two suits cannot be clubbed and tried together and common judgment cannot be passed.
4. No doubt, in cases where parties are common and matter is absolutely similar, to avoid multiplicity of suits and to eliminate chances of conflicting decisions on the same point, consolidation of two or more suits can be ordered. Where, however, suits brought by the same plaintiff are prima facie based on different and independent transactions, the consolidation cannot be ordered, as there cannot be conflicting decisions.
5. It is seen that the trial Court admits that issues are though different and yet, felt that the subject-matter as well as the oral and documentary evidence that could be let in would probably be same and, therefore, directed that the above suits should be clubbed and tried together.
6. Relying upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in Bharat Nidhi Ltd., v. Shital Prasad, AIR 1981 Delhi 251 Sri Subba Rao contended that there will not be any conflicting decisions as far as these cases are concerned and as is observed by the trial Court, the issues are different and, therefore, the suits cannot be clubbed together. As observed by the Delhi High Court in the above decision, no doubt, in order to avoid multiplicity of suits, the clubbing of suits together is welcome. But the question is whether the chances of conflicting decisions would arise in the event of the suit not clubbed together. In the present case, I do not find that there would be conflicting decisions if the suits are not tried together, as the first suit is for declaration of rights and the second suit is for recovery of damages and when the issues are not similar, I am afraid, there can be conflicting decisions if these suits are not clubbed and tried together.
7. In yet another decision in Bokaro & Ramgur Ltd. v. State the Patna High Court, held that it has to be seen whether or not the non-consolidation of two or mere suits is likely to lead, apart from multiplicity of suits, to leaving the door open for conflicting decisions on the same issue, which may be common to the two or more suits sought to be consolidated. It also held that the convenience of the parties and the expenses in the suits are subsidiary to the more important consideration viz., whether it would lead to rendering conflicting decisions on the same point if the suits are not clubbed together. As observed by the Patna High Court, it is to be seen that the convenience of the parties and the expenses involved are to be subsidiary factors to avoid multiplicity of suits where the chances of avoiding conflicting decisions on the same point are to be taken into consideration. In the context of the decision of the Patna High Court, it is to be seen whether there could be conflicting decisions if the suits are not clubbed and tried together.
8. As discussed by me above, when the issues and nature of the suits are different, I am unable to accept the contention of Sri Venkataraman Sarma, learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that if the suits are not clubbed and tried together, it would lead to rendering of conflicting decisions. In the present case, the first suit is for declaration of fishing rights and the second suit is for recovery of damages and tine question of rendering conflicting decisions, in my opinion, would not arise at all, as the issues are different and some of the defendants figured are also different in the two suits. Under these circumstances, I set aside the order dated 14-2-90 in I.A.No. 3341/89 in O.S.No. 464/83 on the file of tine Principal Subordinate Judge, Kakinada.
9. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.