N.K.SODHI, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against an order dated September 18,1993 passed by the Additional Senior Sub-ordinate Judge, Palwal whereby he dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff for consolidation of the two suits titled Bata India Limited v. Anupama Rubber Pvt. Ltd. and Syndicate Bank v. Anupama Rubber Pvt. Ltd.
(2.) THE suit in which the present application was filed had been instituted by Bata India Limited against Anupama Rubber Pvt. Ltd. and Syndicate Bank. This suit is for the recovery of Rs. 15,79,742. 21 paise on account of the alleged supply of raw material and for Rs. 6,00,357. 03 paise as interest. The plaintiff has. also claimed a stun of Rs. 2,63,098/- as damages for non-delivery of machinery and equipment supplied to defendant No. 1. The other suit has been filed by the Syndicate Bank for the recovery of Rs. 45,50,998. 90 paise from Anupama Rubber Pvt. Ltd. and other defendants including Bata India Limited which is the plaintiff in other suit. As per the allegations made in the plaint, the plaintiff (Bata India Limited) entered into an arrangement with defendant No. 1 whereunder the latter was to manufacture Hawai Chappals for the plaintiffs according to the plaintiffs specifications, standards and quality out of the raw materials supplied by the plaintiffs to defendant No. 1. It is further alleged that since defendant No. 1 did not have the requisite machinery and capacity for manufacturing those chappals, the plaintiff supplied the machinery and equipment on loan. It is also the case of the plaintiff that subsequently defendant No. 1 entered into an arrangement with the Syndicate Bank, Palwal whereunder it executed, an irrevocable power of attorney on May 27, 1987 in favour of the Syndicate Bank authorising to receive payments from the plaintiff of the amounts due to defendant No. 1 and that the Bank would in turn finance defendant No. l. It is also alleged in the plaint that defendant No. 2 claimed a sum of Rs. 20,83,027. 44 paise from the plaintiff under the aforesaid power of attorney. Upon verification it was found that the plaintiff had not received the goods against the bills raised by defendant No. 1 and that the invoices had been forged. It was then that the present suit was filed by Bata India Limited claiming the money from defendant No, 1. The Bank too instituted the suit referred to above for the recovery of the money from Anupama Rubber Pvt. Limited and also from Bata India Limited. The Directors of the Company have also been impleaded as defendants. The trial court found that different questions of fact and law were involved in both the suits although Bata India Limited, Anupama Rubber Pvt. Ltd. and the Syndicate Bank had claims and counter-claims inter-se between them and declined to consolidate the two suits. Hence, the present revision. I have heard counsel for the parties at length. It is true that some of the evidence that will be led in the two suits will be common but most of it would be different. There were several accounts opened by Anupama Rubber Pvt. Ltd. with the Syndicate Bank for obtaining finances and it was only, under one of those accounts that the loan had been advanced to defendant No. 1 to meet its obligations with the plaintiff (Bata India Limited ). The Bank has claimed the amount due to it from Anupama Rubber Pvt. Ltd. under several other accounts with which Bata India Ltd. has no concern. The Court will consolidate suits only if it is expeditious and advantageous to all concerned and it appears to it that there is sufficient unity and similarity in the matter in issue in the suite. In the present case where most of the questions of law and facts are different and there is similarity only in regard to a part of the matter in issue and most of the evidence to be led would be different, it will not be in the interest of justice to consolidate the suits.
(3.) IN the result, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.;