Consolidation of suits is justified when common transactions and evidence risk duplication and conflicting decrees.

Where two suits arise from the same commercial transactions, involve substantially the same parties, and require largely overlapping evidence, the Court may order transfer and consolidated trial to avoid duplication, delay, and the risk of inconsistent findings. The refusal of a Section 10 plea does not bar exercise of inherent powers where consolidation is necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. On these facts, the suit was transferred to Visakhapatnam and both matters were directed to proceed together before the same court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit pending at Rewa should be transferred to Visakhapatnam and the two suits consolidated for trial in view of the substantially common parties, transactions, issues and evidence.

Analysis: The two plaints arose out of the same period and the same commercial transactions relating to supply of jute bags. The parties were substantially the same, one defendant being only a division of the same company. The issues in both suits were largely common, and the evidence required would substantially overlap. Separate trials would result in duplication of evidence, delay, expense, and a real risk of inconsistent findings and conflicting decrees. The rejection of the Section 10 plea did not prevent exercise of transfer powers where the ends of justice required both suits to be heard together. Consolidation of suits is permissible under the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

Conclusion: Transfer of the Rewa suit to Visakhapatnam was warranted, and the two suits were to be consolidated and tried together before the same court.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were directed to continue as one consolidated trial at Visakhapatnam so as to avoid multiplicity, duplication of evidence and the possibility of conflicting decrees.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two suits between substantially the same parties arise from the same transactions and involve common issues and evidence, the Court may order transfer and consolidation under its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice and prevent conflicting decrees, even if a Section 10 objection has earlier failed.

---