ORDER M.M. Kumar, J. - This petition filed under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prays for transfer of proceedings initiated by respondents under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity the Act) which are pending in the Court of District Judge, Ludhiana to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Chandigarh. The case pending at Ludhiana is titled as Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (Markfed) v. M/s Mahalakshmi Rice and General Mills Nakodar and others. The principal ground for transfer is that against the same award dated 1.9.2003 the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act and the same is pending before the District Judge, Chandigarh and in order to avoid any conflicting view, it would be appropriate to decide both the cases by the one forum. 2. Brief facts of the case are that some dispute between the parties arose which lead to the appointment of Arbitrator who announced his award on 1.9.2003. The Markfed-respondent has filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act at Ludhiana and the petitioner has filed a similar petition at Chandigarh. In both the cases, the prayer made is for modification and setting aside of part of the award as suitable to the respective parties. The petitioner has filed the petition under Section 34 of the Act on 11.12.2003 in which notice was issued for 12.3.2004 by the District Judge, Chandigarh whereas the Markfed respondent filed the petition a week earlier i.e. on 4.12.2003 in which notice was issued for 9.2.2004. 3. Ms. Madhu P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that arbitration proceedings were held at Chandigarh and the head office of the Markfed is at Chandigarh. According to the learned counsel the whole record is available at Chandigarh and, therefore, is would be proper if the proceedings of both the cases are consolidated and heard at one forum. 4. Shri D.V. Sharma, learned counsel for the Markfed-respondent has argued that the petition under Section 34 of the Act filed by the Markfed-respondent is prior in point of time. Therefore, the petition filed later by the petitioner should be transferred. The learned counsel has maintained that petition under Section 34 of the Act filed by the petitioner at Chandigarh was a week later than that of the petition filed by the Markfed-respondent. Therefore, the petition filed later by the petitioner should be transferred. The learned counsel has maintained that petition under Section 34 of the Act filed by the petitioner at Chandigarh was a week later than that of the petition filed by the Markfed-respondent. The later petition be transferred to Ludhiana and the prayer made should not be accepted. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the instant petition deserves to be accepted because it is well- settled that when the proceedings with regard to the same matters have been initiated by the parties at two places or more than two places then it is always proper to consolidate the cases at one place in order to avoid any possibility of conflicting views. The Supreme Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank v. Chemical Construction Co., AIR 1979 SC 1514 has taken the afore-mentioned view. Similar view has been taken in M/s Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. M/s Jaypee Rewa Cement, 2004(2) PLR 290. It would be appropriate to make a reference to the view taken by the Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.s case (supra). While illustrating the above principle, their Lordships have observed in para 18 as under : "Although the exercise of the discretionary power cannot be imprisoned within the strait-jacket of any cast iron formula uniformly applicable to all situations. Yet, certain broad propositions as to what may constitute a ground for transfer can be deduced from judicial decisions. One of them is that where two suits raising common questions of facts and law between parties common to both the suits, are pending in two different courts, it is generally in the interest of justice to transfer one of those suits to the other forum to be tried by the same court with consequent avoidance of multiplicity in the trial of the same issues and the risk of conflicting decision thereon. The instant case falls squarely within this category." 6. In the later judgment in the case of M/s Chitvalasa Jute Mills (supra) similar view has been taken and it has been emphasised that in order to avoid possible inconsistency which may arise from the adjudication by two different forums the cases be consolidated and their Lordships observed as under : "..... In the later judgment in the case of M/s Chitvalasa Jute Mills (supra) similar view has been taken and it has been emphasised that in order to avoid possible inconsistency which may arise from the adjudication by two different forums the cases be consolidated and their Lordships observed as under : "..... Almost the same set of oral and documentary evidence would be needed to be adduced for the purpose of determining the issue of facts and law arising for decision in the two suits before two different Courts. Thus, there will be duplication of recording of evidence if separate trials are held. The two Courts would be writing two judgments. The possibility that the two courts may record findings inconsistent with each other and conflicting decree may come to be passed cannot be ruled out." 7. In view of the above, it is evident that on the principle as well as precedent both the cases deserve to be consolidated and decided at one place. The question then arises as to where both the cases be adjudicated whether at Chandigarh or at Ludhiana. No grievance has been made by filing the application under Section 24 of the Code by the Markfed-respondent. Moreover, the Head office of the Markfed-respondent is at Chandigarh and the arbitration proceedings admittedly were held at Chandigarh. Therefore, it is directed that the case titled as "Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited v. M/s Mahalakshmi Rice and General Mills, Nakodar and others" pending before the District Judge, Ludhiana be withdrawn and transferred to District Judge, Chandigarh. The District Ludhiana is directed to immediately send the complete file of the afore-mentioned case to District Judge, Chandigarh where proceedings under Section 34 of the Act have been initiated by the petitioner against Markfed-respondent in the case titled as "Mahalakshmi Rice and General Mills v. Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited". The District Judge, Chandigarh shall entrust the case of Markfed-respondent transferred from Ludhiana to the Court where the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 34 is pending. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District Judge, Chandigarh on 24.8.2004. Petition allowed.