Consolidation of suits is permissible when there is sufficient unity or similarity in the matter in issue, or when the determination of the suits rests mainly on a common question.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by the defendant, Shital Prasad Jain, seeking direction that the Suit No. 166 of 1977 be tried along with two other suits, viz. , Nos. 906 and 907 of 1976, pending in this Court, and that this defendant be permitted to lead evidence only in one case which should be treated as his evidence in all the three suits.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the plea taken in the application, averments made by the plaintiff in each of these cases may briefly be noticed.

( 3 ) SUIT No. 166 of 1977 has been filed by Bharat Nidhi Limited a Public Limited Company having its registered office at 7, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, for the recovery of Rs. 2,85,557-35 with interest pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 17 per cent per annum with monthly rests up to date of payment. The case of the plaintiff is that it carries on the business of investment. It lends and advances moneys. On the request of the defendant the Board of Directors of the plaintiff-company passed a resolution at a meeting held on 21st December, 1974, to the effect that a loan of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 repayable on demand be sanctioned to the defendant, carrying interest at the rate of 17 per cent. In accordance with this resolution loan of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 was given to the defendant on 24th December, 1974, in token of payment of which the defendant issued a receipt and also gave a promissory note dated 23rd December, 1974, in favour of the plaintiff. The grievance of the plaintiff is that in spite of several reminders and legal notices the defendant has not paid the outstanding amount and hence this suit.

( 4 ) PNB Finance Limited has filed Suit No. 906 of 1976, inter alia, for declaration, rescission of the contract, cancellation of documents, recovery of possession of flat No. 1-A, Manek, 11-Napean Road, Bombay, and in the alternative for a decree of Rs. 4,08,772. 88. The defendants in this suit are Shital Prasad Jain (applicant herein), his wife, Smt. Pramod Jain, his son, Mukul Jain and The Great Eastern Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. , manek 11-Napean Road, Bombay. Plaintiff s case is that the defendant No. 1 was its Financial Adviser from 1-2-1972 to 11-6-1975 and that he had negotiated the purchase of an ownership flat in the building known as Manek situate at Napean Road, Bombay, which had been put up by defendant No. 4, Great Eastern Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. , Bombay He had asked the plaintiff to directly purchase the said flat while giving him an option to repurchase the same from it. The plaintiff-company purchased the said flat and also bought ten shares in the said Society for Rs. 3,15,000. 00 and furniture and fittings in the flat for Rs. 75,000. 00 with an option given to the defendant No. 1 to re-purchase the same, at its purchase price latest by 31st December, 1974. The plaintiff Company did not require the said flat and as the said defendant had already the option to re-purchase the same, he persuaded the Chairman of the plaintiff to advance him loan of Rupees 3,00,000. 00 so as to enable him to have the conveyance of the said flat in the name of the Hindu undivided family of which he was the Karta. He promised to pay the loan within one year of the transfer of the said flat. He further promised, it is alleged, to pay interest at the rate of 9 per cent payable quarterly on the last day of each quarter. All these representations, it is averred, were contained in various letters written by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff. Believing the representations of defendant No. 1 that the loan would be repaid within one year of the transfer of the said flat, the plaintiff-company entered into agreement dated 28th Mar. 1974. executed at New Delhi between it and defendants 1 to 3 on behalf of Shital Prasad Jain Hindu undivided family, whereby it conveyed its right, title and interest in the said flat and its ten shares in the Society in favour of defendants 1 to 3. Earlier on 27th March, 1974, the plaintiff had adv