1. Considering the controversy involved in these Petitions, by consent of the Advocates appearing for the parties, the same were taken up for final disposal at admission stage. On 3rd May, 2007 I have heard the submissions of Shri Suresh Gole appearing for the Petitioners and Shri Rajesh Shah appearing for the first Respondent.

2. The Petitioners in the Writ Petition No.2810 of 2007 are the original first and second Defendants in S.C. Suit No.4138 of 1978 filed by the first Respondent herein. The second Respondent is the original third Defendant in the said suit. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2823 of 2007 is the original first Defendant in S.C. Suit No.4137 of 1978 filed by the first Respondent. The second Respondent is the second Defendant in the said suit. Considering the controversy involved in these Petitions, it is not necessary to serve notice of these Petitions to the second Respondent in both the Petitions.

3. As stated earlier there are two suits filed by the first Respondent. The first suit (S.C.Suit No.4138 of 1978) relates to shed No.44 in Onkar Industrial Estate, Shri Hanuman Silk Mill Compound, Kanjur Marg, Mumbai 78. The second suit (S.C.Suit No.4137 of 1978) relates to shed No.23, 12A in the same Onkar Industrial Estate. The contention raised by the first Respondent in both the suits is that the sheds subject matter of the suits were acquired on ownership basis by the first Respondent from the second Respondent. The first Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2810 of 2007 is the husband of the second Petitioner. The suits were filed by the first Respondent for declaration that the Petitioners are the trespassers in respect of said two sheds. A decree for possession was also prayed for in the said suits.

4. The written statements were filed in both the suits by the Petitioners. The contention in short in the written statements is that in respect of both the sheds the first Respondent-Plaintiff is merely a benamidar. It is contended that the second Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2810 of 2007 is the real purchaser of the shed No.23. It is contended that the first Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2810 of 2007 is the real purchaser of the shed No.44. It is stated that the father of the first Respondent who was holding the post of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had advanced loan to the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.2810 of 2007 and for the sake of convenience the sheds were acquired in the name of the first Respondent. It is stated that the entire consideration for acquiring the said sheds was paid by the Petitioners.

5. Issues were framed by the learned trial Judge in both the suits on 08th August, 1978. When the suit were fixed for recording of evidence, on the oral prayer made by the first Respondent, the learned trial Judge framed an additional issue casting the burden on the Petitioners to prove their case of benami transaction and further directed the Petitioners to lead the evidence first as according to the learned trial Judge the case was covered by Rule 1 of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The identical orders passed in the said suits were challenged by the Petitioners by filing Writ Petition Nos.5757 of 2006 and 5799 of 2006. By Judgment and Order dated 01st December, 2006 both the Petitions were allowed and the orders were set aside only on the ground that the orders were passed in breach of principles of natural justice. However, liberty was reserved by this Court in favour of the first Respondent to take out appropriate Application for framing of additional issue and for a direction against the Petitioners to enter the witness box before the first Respondent leads the evidence.

6. On the basis of the liberty granted by this Court, the first Respondent took out Notices of Motion No.36 of 2007 and 37 of 2007 in the said two suits. The prayers in the Notices of Motion were identical. The first prayer was for framing an additional issue No.3A and the second one was fo