( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1259 OF 2010 1. Ravishri s/o Veerbhadra Kandula, R/o Gurukrupanagar, Sakuri, Tal. Rahata, District Ahmednagar. 2. Kalyani w/o Ravishri Kandula, R/o Gurukrupanagar, Sakuri, Tal. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. Gopal s/o Pandurang Bhanage 2. Shalini w/o Gopal Bhanage 3. Sachin s/o Gopal Bhanage 4. Sheetal d/o Gopal Bhanage 5. Govind s/o Prabhakar Bhanage 6. Suvarna w/o Govind Bhanage All r/o Sakuri, Tq. Rahata, District Ahmednagar. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. A.S. Bajaj, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, advocate for the respondents No.1 to 6. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 29th April, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) 2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge order dated 13-01-2010, whereby two suits (Spl. C.S. No. 120/2007 and Spl. C.S. No. 32/2008) were directed to be consolidated, but the suit (R.C.S. No. 219/2008), which is filed by them, was segregated. They wanted consolidation of all the three (3) suits to consolidate the suit filed by them (i.e. R.C.S. No. 219/2008). 3. Heard learned counsel. 4. What appears from the rival submissions and the record is that Special Civil Suit No. 120/2007 is the suit filed by the respondents No. 1 to 6 for declaration that the sale agreement between the present petitioners, who are defendants in the suit is illegal and not binding on them. They also sought injunction. Another suit (Spl. C.S. No. 32/2008) is filed by minor plaintiff Aniket for partition and separate possession. According to Aniket, he is minor son of respondent No. 5 Govind and alleges that the transactions entered into by his father are not binding on him. He, therefore, seeks immunity from transactions entered into by the respondents with the petitioners. The petitioners in the meanwhile filed suit bearing R.C.S. No. 219/2008 for perpetual ( 3 ) injunction. 5. The property involved in the suits is the same. The parties to the three (3) suits are same in the real sense because though plaintiff Aniket of the second suit is not a party to other two suits, yet, his claim for partition is likely to affect the other two suits. The issue whether sale- deed executed by the petitioner No. 1 in favour of the petitioner No. 2, in pursuance to the alleged authority available to him under Power of Attorney executed by the respondents, is a genuine transaction or that it is a fraudulent transaction, is a main issue. The entire gamut of the lis between the parties may not be identical. The question to be considered is whether the decisions in the suits, if are rendered separately, are likely to be overlapping or in conflict with each other. Once it is noticed that there will be possibility of overlapping of the evidence and repetition of the consideration of the same issue, ordinarily, consolidation of the suits may be ordered. This Court in “P.T. Ankalsaria v. Union of India” (1974 Mh.L.J. 334), held that when there is sufficiency of unity of causes of action, then the consolidation would be appropriate. It is held : ( 4 ) “11. On the facts of the present case, it appears to me that there is sufficient unity and similarity in the matter in issue in the two suits. All the issues and reliefs need not be identical, nor is the consent of all the parties necessary. If the two suits are not consolidated, some of the issues determined in suit No. 432 of 1967 may be re-agitated by defendant No. 6 in suit No. 295 of 1970 to show that nothing was due by defendants No. 1 to 5 in the suit against them to absolve themselves from their liability. It is, therefore, expeditious and advantageous for all parties, including defendant No. 6 in suit No. 295 of 1970 that the two suits should be tried together. In the exercise of the inherent powers of the Court under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, ex debito justitiae, I order that the two suits be consolidated.” 6. Considering the nature of suits filed by the parties, it may be gathered that the petitioners are seeking protection under the irrevocable Power of Attorney executed by ( 5 ) the respondents in favour of petitioner No. 1 and the agreement with them whereas the respondents are challenging the internal transactions between the petitioners by filing the other two (2) suits. In my opinion, separate trials of all the three (3) suits is likely to result into multiplicity of litigation and conflict of findings on same kind of issues. Hence, it would have been appropriate to consolidate the three suits. If it was apprehended that petitioners may not cooperate in the trial, they could be put to the terms. Mr. A.S. Bajaj undertakes to pay the required court fees and also to modify the prayer clause by adding relief of declaration in the suit for injunction. He also undertakes that the petitioners will not ask for unreasonable time in proceeding with the common hearing of the three suits. 7. For the reasons aforestated, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Rule is made absolute. It is made clear, however, that after consolidation of the suits, the trial Court shall not ordinarily grant more than three (3) adjournments to either party to lead the evidence and if issues are required to be recasted, then same shall be recasted within the period of one month after receipt of this order and that common evidence shall be recorded ( 6 ) within period of three (3) months thereafter. If adjournments are sought for more than three times, the trial Court will be at liberty to reject the same or to impose heavy costs as per its own discretion. Liberty is granted to pay the necessary court fees and to seek amendment for introduction of relief of declaration in respect of the transaction, soon after the re- opening of the Civil Court. If the amendment is not sought as ordered above and the court fees is not paid within such period, the petition may be deemed as dismissed and the consolidation be not effected. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp1259-2010