IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 16 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 5418 of 2025 SHRI SAEED AHMED AND OTHERS Versus M/S NATIONAL TRANSPORT COMPANY AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Krishna Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the petitioners.

ORDER By way of this petition, challenge is made to the order passed by the Trial Court dated 23.08.2025, whereby the Trial Court has refused to consolidate two suits on the ground that one of the suits is at the stage of plaintiff evidence, whereas the other suit is at the stage of final arguments, and the entire evidence has been adduced in the said other suit.

2. Before the Trial Court two suits are pending, one filed by the present petitioners and one filed by the present respondents. An application under Section 24 CPC was filed before the Principal District Judge for transfer of RCSA No.69 of 2018 and RCSB No.18 of 2016 before the same Court and the Principal District Judge vide his order dated 17.02.2025 directed that both the suits be tried by the same Court and reached to a satisfaction that in both the cases the parties are same and relate to inter-se transactions between the parties and therefore, it seems appropriate that both the suits be decided by the same Court. The Principal District Judge, however, left it open for the Trial Court to consider whether the suits are to be consolidated or not.

3. In the present case, the earlier suit is filed by the present respondents being RCSB No.18 of 2016 and the later suit has been filed by the present petitioners being RCSA No.69 of 2018. In the later suit, the entire trial has been completed and the case is at the stage of final arguments while the earlier suit is still at the stage of plaintiff evidence.

4. This Court has gone through the memorandum of plaint in both the suits and it is clear that both the suits relate to money transactions between the same parties and relating to running of the same business. Therefore, the Principal District Judge has also arrived at a conclusion that the matter deserves to be decided by the same Court in the interest of justice. In the later suit, which is filed by present petitioners, relief has been prayed that the audit report, balance sheet and bank NOC be declared valid and the defendants therein are not entitled to make any recovery from the plaintiff.

5. In the earlier suit filed by the present respondents, prayer has been made that account of the firm be carried out and recovery of an amount of Rs.31,33,200/- be made and the amount be paid to the plaintiff therein.

Further prayer is made for recovery of interest etc.

6. Therefore, both the suits relate to transactions of the same firm between the same parties and the order of the Principal District Judge in transferring both the suits to the same Court has not been challenged by the other side. Though the said order was challenged by the present petitioners in M.P. No.5398 of 2025, but that petition has suffered rejection by this Court on 26.11.2025.

7. The purpose of consolidation of suits is to save cost, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. It is also ordered to save the time and energy of the court in recording two different sets of evidence. However, in the present case, in one suit, one set of evidence has already been recorded and the said case is at the stage of final arguments and if at this stage, the suits are consolidated, then the evidence already recorded in the later suit would become nullity, which would be wastage of the time and effort of the parties and of the Court in recording evidence in the later suit. No saving of time, energy and effort would be made if at this stage, the suits are consolidated, because in any event evidence has to be recorded, which would be the case even in case consolidation is ordered, or in case consolidation is not ordered.

8. The purpose of the order of Principal District Judge