IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4001 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 2970 OF 2005 Ashok P. Thakura .... ...... ......Plaintiff. V/s B. Jeejeebhoy Vakharia & Assoc. & Anr. ...... ......Defendants. Mr.Chetan Kapadia i/by M/s.Lilani Shah & Co. Adv. For the plaintiff. Mr.Milind Sathe, Sr. Adv. With Mr.Akram i/by M/s.Harilal Thakkar for the defendant No.1. Mr.G.R.Joshi with Mr.Satyam Vora with Prashant Ghadvi i/by M/s.Markand Gandhi & Co., Advocates for defendant No.2. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 23/4/08 PC: This notice of motion has been taken out in Suit No.2970 of 2005 wherein the plaintiff-a broker has claimed a money decree in the sum of Rs.10 crores and interest as and by way of brokerage charges as he has facilitated conveyance of land admeasuring about more than 500 acres by defendant Nlo.1 to defendant No.2. The relief sought in this notice of motion is that the present suit be tried along with Suit No.3376/05 filed by the present defendant No.2 against defendant No.1 for specific performance of an agreement/MOU. Suit 1 No.3376/05 is filed against present defendant No.1, the plaintiff and nine others. The cause of action for the present plaintiff to institute a suit for brokerage charges is an oral agreement. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has invited my attention to clause 19 of the MOU to substantiate his case that he has acted as broker in finalizing the deal between defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that it would be convenient and advantageous to try both the suits together. The learned counsel for defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have opposed the prayer made in the notice of motion by contending that neither party to both the suits are same nor the subject matter of two suits is similar. Learned counsel for defendants have submitted that consolidation of both the suits would not be in furtherance of cause of justice in as much as not only cause of action for filing both the suits is different but different issues that arise for consideration in both the suits. It is obvious that in the present suit plaintiff will have to establish an agreement in regard to payment of brokerage charges whereas in Suit No.3376/05 the defendant No.2 need to establish that defendants in the said suit were obliged to convey the suit property and having failed to do so decree for specific performance ought to follow. As the parties to both the suits are different and as issues that would arise for consideration would be different and the evidence that parties would be required to lead in both the suits would also be different no useful purpose would be served by directing clubbing of the said suits. It would not be advantageous to club the two suits by 2 directing recording of common evidence and framing of common issues as the issues in both the suits would be different. Hence the prayer made in the notice of motion cannot be granted and the same is rejected. The parameters wherein an order of clubbing of suits should be passed are set out in the a judgment reported in the case of M/s.Chitivalasa Jute Mills V/s Jaypee Rewa Cement, AIR 2004 SC 1687. The present case does not fall within the said parameters. However if both suits are tried one after another for the sake of convenience same would be advantageous. Learned counsel for the defendants have no objection for trial of the present suit along with suit No.3376/05. Hence though notice of motion for consolidation and joint trial of suits is rejected I direct that both the suits be tried one after another. 23.4.08 3