1 17.wp6432.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6432 OF 2011 Nashik Municipal Corporation, Nashik. ....Petitioner. Vs. Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & ors. ....Respondents Mr. M.L. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. P.S. Cardozo, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- NOVEMBER 11, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. It is an admitted position that while common evidence was recorded in 14 Municipal Appeals because of the requests of the Corporation, separate evidence was recorded in Municipal Appeal No. 162 of 2004 and the cross-examination was separately taken. At no point of time, no request for clubbing of the 15 appeals together was made. Such an application namely, Application below Exh. 28 in Municipal Appeal No. 162 of 204 was made at the belated stage. Mr. Patil relied on the observations in paragraph-10 in the case of M/s. P.T. Anklesaria & Co. v/s. Union of India 1974 Mh.L.J. 334. 2 17.wp6432.11 He also relies on the observations in paragraph-4 of the Judgment in the case of Sitaram Deoram Pawar v/s. Rupabai wd/o. Gundulal Khatri & ors. 2006(2) All M.R. 646. 2. There is no dispute about the proposition of law that Court has inherent power to consolidate hearing of 2 or more suits together and the object is to avoid multiplicity of the judicial proceedings. In the present case, all the 14 Appeals are already clubbed together. Mr. Patil makes a statement at bar which is accepted and recorded, that all 15 Appeals are now at the stage of argument and all Appeals are placed before the same Judge. If that be so, concerned Presiding Officer will decide the one set of 14 Appeals and Municipal Appeal No. 162 of 2004 one after other. In fact, the Municipal Corporation had appointed 2 separate advocates in the two appeals earlier. In case the Appeals are before different Presiding Officers, they need not be heard simultaneously and can be decided by the Presiding Officer before whom the Appeals are listed. Subject to above direction no case for interference is made out in the Writ Petition. Hence the same is dismissed. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)