@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. This is an application for consolidation of two appeals to the Privy Council which arise out of the same judgment. The cases were tried together in the Court below and the appeal in this Court was heard and determined in both cases at the same time and one judgment alone was delivered. The questions in dispute in each of these appeals are substantially the same, the appellants in one case being the adult member of a family and the appellants in the other case being the minor members of that family. The only difference in the questions for determination in these two appeals is whether assuming that the adult members of the family fail to make out their case, it is still open to the minor members to contend that the sale which it is sought to have set aside is not binding upon them as they were not properly represented. We have been asked in this case, in order to save expense to all parties, to consolidate these appeals which arise out of the same Judgment and decide substantially the same Questions and at the same time to order that one security bond of not Rs. 4,000, which is usual in the case of these appeals, but of Rs. 6,000 should be lodged to cover the costs of the respondents in these two appeals.
2. It has been contended by the respondents that under the rules which govern appeals to His Majesty in Council there is no provision made for consolidating appeals except in the one case provided in Order XLV, rule 4, where power is given to consolidate appeals for the purposes of pecuniary valuation. The object of that rule is that where you have appeals from one judgment involving substantially the same question for determination before the Privy Council, although each of these appeals separately may not amount in value to the appealable minimum, yet if in the aggregate they do amount to that sum, they may be consolidated so as to bring the amount up to Rs. 10,000 and as that is the only instance which is specifically mentioned in Order XLV, it is said that we have no jurisdiction to consolidate such appeals for any other purpose. After considering the arguments which have been put before us in this case and after considering the other sections of the Code which must be read together and especially section 151, it seems to us that the power of consolidation is an inherent power of this Court, as has been decided in the case of Nand Kishore Sing v. Ram Golam Sahu (2). We think that it was not intended by Order XLV, rule 4, to limit the powers of this Court to consolidate cases to the purposes mentioned in that rule alone. In the present case, where as I have already said, these two appeals are although in form two in substance practically one, we think that in the interests of justice and to save unnecessary expense the appeals ought to be consolidated. There will, therefore, be an order that these two appeals be consolidated and tried together, and further having regard to the fact that in ordinary cases Rs. 4,000 is considered sufficient security for the costs of the respondent we think that justice will be met in this case by ordering that security be given to the extent of Rs. 6,000 by the appellants jointly to meet the costs of the respondents. The result of that will be that that security of Rs. 6,000 will be available to the respondents as against each of the appellants in the present consolidated appeal, so that if it should turn out that the respondents are successful against only one set of appellants then the whole of that security will be available to them for their costs. Let the security bond filed in this appeal be sent down to the District Judge to test and report thereon.
