1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.498 OF 2011 (ABHIJIT S. MIRAGE & ANR...VS.. ASHA PRAMOD SANANDA & ANR.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Panpaliya h/f. Mr. A.P. Tathod, Advocate for Petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 1, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition the petitioners impugn the order passed by the trial Court on 24.01.2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs to consolidate Regular Civil Suit No.23 of 2004 and Regular Civil Suit No.24 of 1998. 3. It is necessary to note that in the year 1998 respondent No.1 Asha had filed a suit against the father of the petitioners by name Santosh for declaration and permanent injunction. It was the case of Asha that she had purchased the suit property from Santosh for a valuable consideration of Rs.40,000/- on 26.03.1991 and was in actual possession of the same. According to Asha the defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.24 of 1998 i.e. Santosh did not have any right, title or interest in the suit property. 4. After the suit was filed in the year 1998, in the year 2004 Abhijit and Makrand two sons of Santosh filed a 2 suit for a declaration that they were owners of the suit property described in paragraph 1 of the plaint and defendant No. 1 Asha, in that suit, be directed to deliver the actual possession of the suit property in favour of Abhijit and Makarand. This suit was registered as Regular Civil Suit No.23/2004. Asha had filed an application in Regular Civil Suit No.23/2004 seeking stay to the said suit as issues involved in both the suits were similar. The trial Court had stayed the subsequent suit of the year 2004. An appeal filed against that order was also dismissed. However, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to move the trial Court to consider the consolidation of both the suits and its disposal together, if desired. After this Court passed an order on 4th April, 2009, it appears that the petitioners moved an application for consolidation of Regular Civil Suit No.23/2004 with Regular Civil Suit No.24/1998, on 10.01.2011. The trial Court, however, dismissed the application by the impugned order dated 24.01.2011. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that the trial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for consolidation of the two suits. It is necessary to note that the evidence in Regular Civil Suit No.24 of 1998 was recorded and the case was fixed for arguments. Whereas, it is necessary to note that in Regular Civil Suit No.23/2004 the matter had also not reached the stage of evidence. It is also necessary to note that though this Court had granted liberty to the petitioners to move an application for consolidation of the suits by the order dated 4th April, 2009, an application for consolidation of the suits was filed by the petitioners on 10.01.2011. Since the first 3 suit filed in the year 1998 was fixed for arguments, the trial Court rightly held that there was no propriety in consolidating both the suits as the evidence in the first case was already recorded and the case was fixed for arguments. 6. The order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any error whatsoever so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..