:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 625 OF 2008 Shakuntala Dilip Kate and anr. ...Petitioners Versus Vilas Chhaganlal Rathod & Ors. ....Respondents ====== Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.R.S.Apte i/by. Mr.T.D.Deshmukh, Adv. for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 16TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Mr.Gorwadkar, appearing in support of this petition which impugns an order passed by the lower Appellate Court on 11.1.2008 in Civil Misc.Application no.7 of 2008 submits as follows :- 2. Special Civil Suit no. 1428 of 2006, Reg.Civil Suit No.1825 of 2007 and Sp.Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008 are pending in the court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune between the same parties. He submits that insofar as Special Civil Suit no.28 of 2008 is concerned, that is for declaration of share, partition and separate possession between the family members. In :2: :2: :2: the same, an Application for interim injunction (Exhibit-5) is moved and the same is pending. The plaintiffs to the said suit are petitioners before me. He pointed out that by an order passed on 5.1.2008, the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune has directed parties to Sp.Civil Suit No.28 of 2008, should maintain status-quo. The injunction Application (Exhibit-5) is pending. In his submission, some of the arguments while impugning the present order and in that suit, so also, in the pending injunction Application are likely to be common. In case any observations are made by this court that are likely to prejudice the case of parties in the Civil Suit for partition and separate possession. 3. In such circumstances, Mr.Gorwadkar states that he has instructions not to press this petition, but, at the same time, the petitioner in the Writ petition seeks liberty to raise all pleas including those raised in the present Writ Petition, when Exhibit-5/Application in Sp.Civil Suit No.28 of 2008 is argued. He also states that his instructions are that if this court consolidates the three suits and directs :3: :3: :3: that they be tried together, then, the challenge to the order of the District Judge will not be pressed. 4. Mr.Apte, appearing for the contesting Respondents in this Writ Petition , while not disputing pendency of the suits, so also, consenting to the consolidation of the same, submits that this court should not issue any clarification which would prejudice the case of the original plaintiff in Suit No. 1825 of 2007. 5. In my view, in the light of the statement made by Mr.Gorwadkar, the petition is disposed off as not pressed, but, with liberty to both sides to raise all such pleas as are raised in this Writ Petition and in the pleadings , in the pending suit before the Joint Civil judge, Senior Division , while the Application (Exhibit-5) is being decided by him. Further, the hearing of Sp.Civil Suit No.1428 of 2006, Reg.Civil Suit No.1825 of 2007 and Sp.Civil Suit No.28 of 2008 shall be taken up together. All suits are consolidated and would be tried together as well. Needless to state, that this court has not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions and they are kept open for being :4: :4: :4: urged in the pending proceedings. Petition disposed off. No costs. sd/- *******