-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1949 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1949 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1949 OF 2007 Shri Roshanlal B. Agarwal, .. Petitioner. Vs Satish Rameshwardas Agarwal and ors .. Respondents. Mr Prataprao J Shinde, for the petitioner. Mr A.A.Garge, for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. DATE : 26.03.08. DATE : 26.03.08. DATE : 26.03.08. PC: PC: PC: 1. Rule. Mr.Garge, learned counsel, waives service for respondent no.1. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. I have Heard Mr Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Garge, learned counsel for respondent no.1. None appears for other respondents, though served. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 30.10.2006 passed by the learned District Judge-2 and Addl.Sessions Judge, Pune, dismissing Civil Revision Application no.15 of 2004 filed by the petitioner. The Revision was directed against an order dated 9.3.2004 in Civil Suit no.269 of 1999, by which the application filed by the petitioner for hearing this suit and Regular Civil Suit No.123 of 2003 together, came to be rejected. -2- 3. It appears that there are three suits pending between the parties to the present writ petition, bearing Regular Civil Suit Nos.269 of 1999,1444 of 2002 and 123 of 2003. In all the three suits, the subject matter is same and they are pending in the very same court. The first suit is filed by respondent no.1 against the petitioner seeking his eviction on the ground of default, whereas the second suit (R.C.S.No.1444 of 2002) has been filed by respondent no.4 against respondent nos. 1 to 3, who are brothers, inter-se, for declaration that he is an absolute owner of the suit premises. The third suit is filed by the petitioner seeking declaration as to who, amongst the respondents, is entitled to receive rent from him. From mere perusal of the prayers made in all the three suits, it is clear that they are inter-connected. The first suit, in my opinion, cannot be decided unless the issue of ownership, as raised in other two suits is decided. It is against this backdrop, I am inclined to allow this writ petition by the following order. (i) The trial Court shall club Regular Civil Suit No.269 of 1999 and Regular Civil Suit No.123 of 2003 and proceed to hear them together on merits in accordance with law. It is open for the petitioner to file a formal application for clubbing the second suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.1444 of 2002 and its hearing with the other two suits. If such -3- an application is filed by either of the parties within a period of four weeks from today, the trial Court shall allow the same and proceed to hear all the three suits together and dispose them of on merits in accordance with law expeditiously. In view thereof, the order dated 30.10.2006 impugned in the present writ petition so also the order dated 9.3.2004 passed by the trial Court are set aside. Similarly, the order dated 14.9.2004 allowing the application at Exhibit-32 in Regular Civil Suit No.1444 of 2002 by which hearing of Regular Civil Suit No.123 of 2003 has been stayed, renders ineffective. With these observations, rule is disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (D.B.Bhosale,J.)