1 WP.5445.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5445 OF 2010 1. Dnyanoba Rama Waghmare Age : 65 years, Occ : Nil, R/o Behind Town Hall, Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist.Latur. 2. Rahul Dnyanoba Waghmare Age : 26 years, Occ : Service, R/o Behind Town Hall, Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist.Latur. 3. Ravi Dnyanoba Waghmare Age : 24 years, Occ : Private Service, R/o Behind Town Hall, Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 4. Kiran Dnyanoba Waghmare Age : 22 years, Occ : Private Service, R/o Behind Town Hall, Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist.Latur. ..PETITIONERS VERSUS- Mohd. Ayaz Mohd. Matinsab Qureshi, age : 32 years, Occ : Business, R/o Matin Building Behind Town Hall, Ahmedpur, Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist.Latur ..RESPONDENT ......... Mr.P.G. Gaikwad holding for V.D. Salunke, advocate for petitioners. Mr.J.R. Patil, advocate for respondent. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 29th July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2 WP.5445.2010 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25th January, 2010 rendered by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmedpur, whereby the application for amalgamation of two suits bearing R.C.S. No.236/2008 and R.C.S. No.55/2009 filed by them in R.C.S. No.236/2008 vide Exhibit-51 came to be rejected. The contention of the petitioners' was that the respondent has filed another suit bearing R.C.S. No.55/2009, which was pending for framing of issues. The petitioners alleged that the subject matter involved in both the suits being common and similar question being involved therein, it would be appropriate to amalgamate the said two suits for simultaneous consideration. The petitioners requested that both the suits may be heard simultaneously in the interest of justice. The learned Civil Judge rejected their application. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. At the outset, it is important to notice that the learned Civil Judge did not observe that the subject matter in both the suits is of different nature. He did not observe that there is no unity of causes of action in both the suits i.e. the lis between the parties referred in the application. The impugned order reads as follows : 3 WP.5445.2010 "Order Perused application and say filed upon. Heard both sides. In fact the parties are different, so also the claim, in both these suits. Present suit is formal one. Therefore considering stage of other suit i.e. R.C.S. 55/09, so also its nature, it is not necessary to hear and decide both suits together. Hence rejected. -Sd- 25.01.10" Perusal of the above order, reveals that there is non-application of judicial mind to the reference made in the application. 5. In "M/s P.T. Anklesaria & Co. V/s Union of India" (1974 Mh.L.J. 334), this Court held that where there is sufficient unity and similarity of issues existing in plaintiff's suit and defendant's suit, the suits should be consolidated and consent of parties in such suit is not necessary. It is obvious that such amalgamation of suits is required in order to avoid conflicts of decisions on the same issues and, moreover, to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the correct legal position and casually rejected the application by the impugned order. Needless to say, the impugned order is perverse and unsustainable. 4 WP.5445.2010 6. In the result, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Rule is made absolute with a direction to amalgamate the suits by allowing application and to decide them by simultaneous trial. No Costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp5445.10