:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1663 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 1663 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 1663 OF 2008 Mr. Narsing Babu Mali (Gawade) and others ..Petitioners V/s Mrs. Suman Ashok Mali (Gawade) andothers ..Respondents. Mr.Anand Vadgaonkar for the petitioner Mr.Umesh Mankapure for respondnet Nos. 1,2, and 4 CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 19TH JUNE, 2008 : 19TH JUNE, 2008 : 19TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. 1. Affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.3 is taken on record. 2. By impugned order dated 19-11-2007, the Principal District Judge, Sangli, has rejected an application of the petitioner for transfer of R.C.S.No. 1/2007 pending before the Civil Judge,,J.D. Jath to the Court of Jt. Civil Judge, S.D., Sangli, as one probate application is pending in the Court of Jt. Civil Judge,S.D. Sangli. 3. In the impugned order it is specifically :2: observed that though it is true that the dispute between the same parties are normally to be tried in the same Court does not necessarily mean that in every situation wherein different disputes between the same parties are pending in different Courts they are to be tried by one Judicial Officer only. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in case of Nirmal Devi V/s Nirmal Devi V/s Nirmal Devi V/s Arun Arun Arun Kumar Gupta and others, Kumar Gupta and others, Kumar Gupta and others, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 505, wherein the Apex Court had clubbed the probate proceedings with the civil suit and transferred the suit to the Court, where the probate case was pending for being tried together. 5. I have perused the said decision cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The decision does not make it mandatory that in every such matter, the suit is to be transferred so that both the proceedings are tried together. The learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the case of Delhi Delhi Delhi Development Development Development Authority V/s Vijaya C. Gurshaney (Mrs) Authority V/s Vijaya C. Gurshaney (Mrs) Authority V/s Vijaya C. Gurshaney (Mrs) and and and another, another, another, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 301. It is his submission that the Probate Courts do not confer :3: title, which title can be challenged even after grant of probate or letters of administration. 6. Having perused the impugned order and the material on record, I find that the discretion exercised by the Principal Judge, Sangli cannot be faulted and does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)