1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R. WRIT PETITION NO. 1230 OF 2008 & W.P. No. 1132 OF 2008 (1) W.P. No. 1230/08 Namdeo s/o Paikuji Hatwar, aged 70 years, Occupation : Cultivator, r/o Ramtek (Nehru Ward), District Nagpur. ... PETITIONER.  VERSUS - Laxmikant s/o Namdeorao Hatwar, aged 39 years, Occupation : Business, r/o Shaniwari, Nehru Ward, Ramtek, District Nagpur. ... RESPONDENT. ..... Mr. Y.N. Thengre Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.B. Bangde Advocate for Respondent. .,... (2) W.P. No. 1132/08 Vinod s/o Namdeorao Hatwar, aged 33 years, Occupation : Business, r/o Shaniwari (Nehru Ward), Ramtek, District Nagpur. ... PETITIONER. 2  VERSUS - 1. Laxmikant s/o Namdeo Hatwar, aged 39 years, Occupation : Business, r/o Shaniwari, Nehru Ward, Ramtek, District Nagpur. 2. Manoj s/o Namdeo Hatwar aged 36 years, Occupation : Labourer, r/o Shaniwari, Nehru Ward, Ramtek, District Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS. ..... Mr. Y.N. Thengre Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.B. Bangde Advocate for Respondent no.1. Mr. P.R. Patil Advocate for Respondent no.2. .,... CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 14.07.2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : Rule. Heard forthwith finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. Heard Mr.Thengre, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Bangde for respondent no.1 and Mr.Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.2 in both these petitions. Both the petitions are being disposed of by the common judgment. 3 2. Mr.Thengre, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions stated the facts which are relevant for deciding the writ petitions. Original plaintiffs Laxmikant and Manisha filed Regular Civil Suit No. 80 of 2003 claiming a decree that the suit properties mentioned at Sr.No. 1 and 3 at mouza Navargaon, Ramtek are joint family properties and also asked for shares therein. Regular Civil Suit No.18/04 has been filed by Namdeo against Laxmikant for possession and damages and the prayer therein is claiming a decree for possession of the suit house No. 384, Nehru Ward, Prabhag 3, Ramtek, which is admittedly included in the description of property at Sr.No. 1 and 3 in R.C.S. No.80/03. In one more suit, i.e. R.C.S. No. 19/04 filed by Manoj and Vinod against Laxmikant, there is also a prayer for possession of House No.394. 3. Mr.Thengre argued that R.C.S. Nos. 18/04 and 19/04 have become ripe for evidence and even evidence has 4 been recorded in one suit. As regards R.C.S. No.80/03, he argued that despite High Court's direction to decide the said suit within six months, the plaintiffs therein Laxmikant and Manisha have hardly made any effort to get the said suit ripe for evidence. 4. The learned counsel for respondents, on the contrary, state that since one of the defendants in their suit sold some property, the plaintiffs in R.C.S. No. 80/03 were required to amend the plaint and that is why there was a delay and since the amendment has been allowed the progress can also be made in the said suit. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned orders in these petitions on the ground that instead of staying the suit, the trial Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers and consolidated all the suits for hearing. Admittedly, none of the parties have made any application to the trial Court in any of the suit for consolidation of the suits. In my opinion, if the parties to 5 these writ petitions are allowed to make such application for consolidation of these suits, the issue can be resolved. Prima facie, it appears that consolidation of the suits would be legal and proper, but I leave it to the trial Court to decide the said application, if made, on its own merit. The learned counsel for respondents to these petitions having been convinced that consolidation of the suits would sub- serve the ends of justice, consequently make prayer for withdrawal of the application under Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code in both the suits, namely R.C.S. Nos. 18/04 and 19/04. These applications, namely Ex,17 in R.C.S. No.18/04 and Ex.38 in R.C.S. No.19/04, are allowed to be withdrawn and consequently the impugned orders are set aside by consent of parties. The parties to these writ petitions are granted liberty to apply to the trial Court for consolidation of the suits. The application may be made within a fortnight from today and if such application is made, the same shall be decided within four weeks 6 therefrom. Rule accordingly. No order as to cost. JUDGE /TA/