1 wp 7235.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7235 OF 2011 Janabai Govind Jadhav and others .. Petitioners Versus Bhimabai Rambhau Kale and others .. Respondents Shri P. N. Sonpethkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . Shri Sonpethkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, two suits involving same subject matter and the same properties are pending in the same Court. Both the suits are for partition and separate possession between the same parties and the same property and in the same Court, in view of that the learned counsel contends that the application was made for consolidation of the said two suits or the two suits to be tried simultaneously. Earlier application was rejected and as such subsequent application was filed for recall of the said order in the light of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in 2 wp 7235.11 Writ Petition No. 4709/2003 decided on December 12, 2005. The learned counsel submits that Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits consolidation of the said suits. The learned counsel contends that the evidence in both the suits would be the same. Both the suits are at the stage of evidence and as such, there was no impediment for the Court to decide the suits together. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel I have gone through the order and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4709/2003 decided on December 12, 2005. In the said judgment in Writ Petition No. 4709/2003 referred supra the Court was dealing with a case wherein the Trial Court has exercised the discretion of consolidating the two suits and adding a person as party to the suit. The Court observed that there is no impediment for the Court to consolidate the suit and discretion exercised was proper. 3. In the present case the Trial Court has refrained from exercising the said discretion of consolidating the two suits and has observed that parties in both the suits are different. Moreover has referred to the provisions of Sec. 10 of the Code of 3 wp 7235.11 Civil Procedure stating that the subsequent suit can be stayed. 4. A decree in one suit would govern the parties and may also be relevant in a subsequent suit. The discretion exercised by the Trial Court cannot be said to be arbitrary. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an application U/Sec. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the petitioner so desires. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to cost. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11