1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8419 OF 2010 Shri Anil Khubchand Gurubakshani .. PETITIONER VERSUS Shri Kanhaiyalal Khiyaldas Kewalramani & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A.G. Magare, advocate for the petitioner. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 16 th SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1 In all three suits are presented by the plaintiff claiming recovery of amount from different defendants. It is the contention of the applicants / original defendants that all the suits are presented based on similar facts. Defence in all the suits is also likely to be similar. For proper adjudication of the controversy it is prayed that all the suits be consolidated together. Plaintiff has opposed the application contending that the suits presented by him are against different defendants and the evidence to be lead in all the suits would not necessarily be common. 2 2 Trial court, however, has directed to consolidate all the three suits for the purpose of disposal. Trial court has also further observed that parties have liberty to lead common evidence in all the suits or may choose to lead evidence separately and adopt the same for all the three suits. Order passed by the trial court is in furtherance of proper administration of justice. No prejudice is likely to be caused to the plaintiff / petitioner herein as the choice is left with him to either lead evidence in common or separately. In exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in interference is called for in the instant petition. Petition stands rejected. 3 Learned counsel undertakes to deposit deficit court fees within two weeks. 4 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp8419.10.odt