JUDGMENT - S.S. NIJJAR, J.:---This notice of motion has been taken out under section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for stay of further proceedings in the present suit. In affidavit in support of the notice of motion, it is stated that the defendant No. 1 was the legally wedded wife of one Sohanlal Bansiram Ghai, who passed away on 3rd March 1989. The defendant No. 1 along with her daughter and son as the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased filed Suit No. 1055/89 in this Court on 3rd April 1989. This suit is filed against the plaintiffs herein and others seeking, inter alia, the declaration that the plaintiffs therein are the only heirs and legal representatives of the deceased and are as such entitled to the estate left by the deceased. It is also claimed in Suit No. 1055/89 that the defendants therein do not have any share, right, title or interest of whatsoever nature in the estate of the deceased. Prayer for appointment of Receiver and injunction was also made in that suit. Suit No. 1055/89 shall be hereinafter referred to as the first suit. Suit No. 503/96 has been filed by defendants No. 1, 2 and 5 in the first suit. This suit shall be hereinafter referred to as "the present suit". The plaintiffs in the present suit also seek a declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are the only heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Sohanlal and they alone are entitled to the rights, title and interest to all the properties mentioned in Exhibit "B" to the plaint. It is also prayed that the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 in the present suit (the plaintiffs in the first suit), their family members, servants, agents and employees be ordered and directed to hand over to the plaintiffs in the present suit the vacant and peaceful possession of all the properties and documents in their possession shown as Exhibit "H" to the plaint. Similar prayer is made against defendant No. 4. In the first suit, the Court Receiver was appointed on the application of the plaintiffs therein on 7th April 1989. This ad-interim order was confirmed on 25th April 1995. Similar prayer is made against defendant No. 4. In the first suit, the Court Receiver was appointed on the application of the plaintiffs therein on 7th April 1989. This ad-interim order was confirmed on 25th April 1995. In this order, it is held that rival claim of the parties as to who is legally wedded wife of the deceased would be examined at the time of the trial of the suit. The plaintiffs in the present suit had preferred an appeal against the said order which is still pending. The present suit has been filed on 20th December 1996 against the plaintiffs and others in the first suit. Since the Court Receiver has already been appointed in the first suit, the plaintiff in the present suit have impleaded the Receiver as party defendant. 2. Mr. Shah, the learned Counsel appearing for defendants No. 1 to 3 in support of the notice of motion, submitted that the issues which arise in the present suit are substantially the same if not identical to the issues which would arise in the first suit. In view of section 10 of Civil Procedure Code, he submits that the proceedings in this suit ought to be stayed. 3. Affidavit in reply to the notice of motion has been filed in which it is stated that the present notice of motion is misconceived and is only an attempt to delay and deny the adjudication of the rights of the plaintiffs as the only legal heirs of the deceased. It is also stated that the proceedings in the present suit do not fall within the scope of section 10 of Civil Procedure Code. It is stated that the issues which would arise in the present suit are substantially the same as the issues which would arise in the first suit. 4. Mr. Vernekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in the present suit, submits that if the defendants in the first suit do not succeed in the suit, then the plaintiffs in the present suit would be left without any remedy. He submits that no decree in the first suit can be passed in favour of the plaintiffs as they are defendants therein. He further submits that the plaintiffs in the present suit claims to be the first wife of the deceased. The first suit has been filed by the second wife. He submits that no decree in the first suit can be passed in favour of the plaintiffs as they are defendants therein. He further submits that the plaintiffs in the present suit claims to be the first wife of the deceased. The first suit has been filed by the second wife. The third wife is impleaded as defendant No. 3 in the first suit and defendant No. 4 in the present suit. All the three wives are claiming to be the only legally wedded wife of the deceased. He further submits that what is contemplated under section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code is the stay of the trial of the subsequent suit provided all the ingredients as set out therein are satisfied. In the present suit, the defendants who are plaintiffs in the first suit have not filed their written statement. The suit has not even come up for direction. No directions for pre-trial formalities are given and the parties have not even completed the pre-trial formalities. In view of the above, he submits that the notice of motion is premature. He further submits that this is a fit case in which the Court ought to order that both the suits be tried together. In support of his submission, Mr. Vernekar relies upon a judgment of the High Court of Orissa in the case of (Dr. Guru Prasad Mohanty v. Bijoy Kumar Das)1, reported in A.I.R. 1984 Orissa 209 and a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of (P.P. Gupta v. East Asiatic Co.)2, reported in A.I.R. 1960 Allahabad 184. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the plaintiffs in both the suits are claiming be to the only legally wedded wife of the deceased. The third wife has been impleaded as the defendant in both the suits. The property in dispute is identical. The defence raised by the plaintiffs in the present suit in reply to the first suit would be similar to the claim made in the plaint in the present suit. Similarly the defence which would be raised to the present suit by the plaintiffs in the first suit would be similar to the claim made in the plaint in the first suit. There is substance in the submission of Mr. Similarly the defence which would be raised to the present suit by the plaintiffs in the first suit would be similar to the claim made in the plaint in the first suit. There is substance in the submission of Mr. Vernekar to the effect that the plaintiffs in the present suit can not be given any relief in the first suit. Thus out of necessity, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs. 6. In the judgment given by the Orissa High Court (supra), it has been held thus : "Section 10 merely lays down a procedure and does not vest any substantive right in the parties. The object of the said section is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause of action, the same subject matter and the same relief. The policy of the law is to obviate the possibility or two contradictory verdicts by one and the same Court in respect of the same relief. The object of consolidation of suits is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary delay and protraction of litigation. These objects are not in conflict with the principles of section 10, but in the aid of the object of the said section". It has been further held in para 5 of the said judgment as follows : "Where two suits were filed and it was clear from the facts of the case that the contesting parties in the case in two suits were same, the disputed property in the suit filed earlier to it and the case of the plaintiff in earlier suit was substantially his defence in later suit and the case of plaintiff in later suit was his defence in earlier suit, the Court had inherent power to consolidate the two suits and to direct analogous hearing of the same in ends of justice". Similarly the Allahabad High Court has also taken the view that section 10 was not intended to take away the inherent power of the Court to consolidate in the interests of justice in appropriate cases different suits between the same parties in which the matter in issue is substantially the same. Similarly the Allahabad High Court has also taken the view that section 10 was not intended to take away the inherent power of the Court to consolidate in the interests of justice in appropriate cases different suits between the same parties in which the matter in issue is substantially the same. The Allahabad High Court has held as follows : "Section 10 does not go to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court trying the second suit, but merely lays down a rule of procedure. The words no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit were intended to bar the separate trial of any suit in which the matter in issue was also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties in the same Court or in any other Court. But these words do not apply to the simultaneous hearing of a later and an earlier suit after consolidation of the two, if the matter in issue in both is directly and substantially the same. Section 10 was not intended to take away the inherent power of the Court to consolidate in the interests of justice in appropriate cases different suits between the same parties in which the matter in issue is substantially the same." 7. It thus becomes apparent that the object of section 10 is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings with regard to the same subject matter and to avoid contradictory judgments being given by the same Court. In circumstances such as this, it would be open to the Court to exercise its inherent power under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to pass appropriate orders to do justice between the parties. The object of consolidation of suit is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and unnecessary delay and protraction of litigation. The two suits which are the subject matter of this litigation are between the members of the same family. Each part of the family in each suit is claiming to be sole heir and legal representative of the deceased. The evidence in both the suits would, in all probability, be common. The witnesses would also be by and large common. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the two suits ought to be directed to be consolidated and tried together. 8. The evidence in both the suits would, in all probability, be common. The witnesses would also be by and large common. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the two suits ought to be directed to be consolidated and tried together. 8. In view of the above, the notice of motion is disposed of with the order that the two suits are directed to be clubbed and tried together. Notice of Motion allowed with direction.