1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5248 OF 2009 Sou.Phlvati Janba Patil ...Petitioner vs. Bhimrao Jivba Patil & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.D.B.Patil for the petitioner Mr.Prashant Bhavke i/b Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for the respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 12, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By the impugned order a suit for perpetual injunction filed by the petitioner has been ordered to be heard along with the suit for partition filed by the first respondent. The order dated 11th October 2007 was passed by the trial Court directing that the suits shall be heard together. An application was made by the petitioner in the suit filed by the first respondent that the evidence be recorded in the suits separately and thereafter, arguments may be heard together and a common Judgment may be delivered. The said application was rejected by order dated 2nd February 2009 by directing that the evidence will have to be recorded simultaneously. This is the order under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that considering the nature of the suits, there cannot be any common evidence and therefore, the learned trial Judge has committed an error. 3 I have considered the submissions. The subject matter of both the suits is the same. The petitioner is 2 claiming perpetual injunction on the basis that she is the exclusive owner and in possession of the suit property. The first respondent has filed a suit for partition claiming a share in the same property. Therefore, issues in both the suits will be common. Even evidence will be common to some extent. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned Judgment. No case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE