Transfer of Cross-Suits Arising from the Same Transaction to Avoid Conflicting Findings and Multiplicity of Proceedings

The parties entered into an Agreement to Sell (ATS) dated 01.09.2020 for an industrial property in Rajasthan for Rs. 5.55 Crores, with the respondent paying an advance of Rs. 1.10 Crores

The respondent initially filed an ordinary suit for recovery, which was withdrawn and re-filed as a commercial suit (C.S.(Comm.) 836/2025) before the District Judge, Rohini

Subsequently, the petitioner filed a commercial suit (C.S.(Comm.) 137/2026) before the Delhi High Court seeking damages of Rs. 4.18 Crores for alleged breaches by the respondent, including losses from a distress sale to a third party

The petitioner sought transfer of the respondent’s suit from the District Court to the High Court to be tried alongside its own suit

1. Whether the two suits pending in different forums should be consolidated and tried together to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting findings

2. Whether the difference in the nature of reliefs (refund of earnest money vs. foreseeable damages) and the priority of filing preclude the transfer of the earlier-instituted suit

Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which empowers the High Court to transfer suits to ensure the interest of justice and prevent conflicting judgments

Principles established in Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement and Gupte Cardiac Care Centre and Hospital v. Olympic Pharma Care (P) Ltd., which hold that suits arising from the same transaction and involving common questions of fact and law should be tried together

Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to determine the commercial nature of the dispute involving immovable property used for trade

The court observed that both suits are fundamentally rooted in the alleged breach of the same ATS dated 01.09.2020

While the respondent seeks a refund and the petitioner seeks damages, the core adjudicatory fact is identifying which party failed to perform its contractual obligations

The court noted that the evidence—specifically WhatsApp communications from November 2020—is identical for both cases

Relying on the cited precedents, the court reasoned that separate trials would lead to a "multiplicity of proceedings and possibly contrary findings" on the same set of facts

The court rejected the respondent's argument regarding priority of filing, noting that the petitioner's suit could not be transferred to the District Court due to its higher pecuniary value; thus, the only viable consolidation was at the High Court level

It distinguished the Delhi Public School Society case by noting that the issues here are deeply interdependent, unlike the "entirely independent" reliefs in the cited precedent

The High Court allowed the petition and directed the transfer of C.S.(Comm.) 836/2025 from the North-West District, Rohini Courts, to itself

The transferred suit will be heard alongside C.S.(Comm.) 137/2026 from the stage it has currently reached