The High Court has jurisdiction under Section 24, C.P.C. to direct an appeal and a suit to be heard and disposed of together to avoid conflict of decisions.

ORDER :- Petition is filed under Section 24 (1) (b) (i) of the Civil P.C. for withdrawing the appeal in A.S. No. 297 of 1981 on the file of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras to the file of this Court. It is claimed by the petitioner that O.S. No. 5101 of 1981 was filed in the City Civil Court for declaration that the Bank Guarantees executed by the second respondent-Bank herein, is illegal, void and unenforceable and for consequential injunction restraining first respondent from enforcing the four bank guarantees executed by second respondent in favour at first respondent. The suit was dismissed resulting in the filing of A.S. No.297 of 1981, as against it. C.M.P. No.1176 of 1981 was filed for interim injunction, which was granted.

2. Earlier to institution of O.S. No.5101 of 1981, petitioner filed C.S. No. 316 of 1980 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,02,500/- and for declaring that the order passed by the first respondent on 9-5-1980 is illegal and not binding and for consequential injunction against it and from enforcing or recovering the amounts covered by the four bank guarantees given by the second respondent herein. Application No.576 of 1980 was filed in the said suit to restrain the respondent from enforcing bank guarantees and initially interim injunction was granted, but later on withdrawn on the filing of O.S. No.5101 of 1981 in the City Civil Court, Madras. It is therefore contended that common questions of law, facts and issues arise for consideration, both in C.S. No. 316 of 1980 and A.S. No. 297 of 1981 and since, substantial question of law of public importance require to be decided in the appeal, and to avoid conflict of decisions, this is eminently a fit matter, where the appeal requires to be withdrawn and heard and disposed of by this Court. Application No. 4074 of 1981 was filed in C.S. 316 of 1980 for amendment of plaint and the amendments having been allowed, the petitioner has the right to question even the letter of intent dated 14/17-10-77, and also about the validity of the termination dated 9-5-1980. Further Application No. 4112 at 1981 filed under clause 13 of the Letters Patent in the suit, had to be withdrawn, since the Court felt that it would have no jurisdiction to transfer an appeal to the Original Side of this Court.

3. In an elaborate counter-affidavit, first respondent would plan (complain ?) that A.S. No. 297 of 1981 pending in City Civil Court, Madras, is the outcome of an abuse of process of Court and mainly intended to protract the proceedings, since after filing the suit in the High Court, there was no justification for filing of a similar suit in the City Civil Court. Mainly because the petitioner could not secure injunction in this Court, he had resorted to this device. The application filed in this Court was withdrawn only after securing interim injunction in the City Civil Court. When first respondent is entitled to get under the Bank Guarantees, a sum of Rs. 5,40,000/- and the recovery having been stalled by the proceedings during the past two years, it is causing untoward loss, to first respondent. The issues relating to four bank guarantees and their validity and their enforceability do not arise for consideration in the suit pending in this Court, wherein only the validity of the termination of the contract is the main issue. Therefore, common issues in the two proceedings relating to the four bank guarantees, do not arise for consideration. There was no need for the petitioner to institute a suit in the City Civil Court after having instituted the suit in this court. The main attempt is to delay the realisation of the amounts covered by the bank guarantees. There is no justification made out for transfer of the appeal to the file of this court.

4. In reply affidavit, it is reiterated that Application No. 4073 of 1981 was filed in C.S. No. 316 of 1980, for amending the plaint and the amendments having been carried out, an issue necessarily relating to the fou