The court has discretionary power to consolidate suits in appropriate cases to save costs, time, and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr Parikshit Sawant for the petitioners and Mr Deepak Gaonkar for respondent no.1. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioners' challenge order dtd. 5/1/2017 by which the learned Trial Court has dismissed the petitioners' application for consolidation of Civil Suits bearing Regular Civil Suit No.18/2016 and Regular Civil Suit No.36/2012.

3. Mr Sawant states that the most important and common issue in both the suits is that of the alleged ownership of the respondents herein. He submits that the parties to the two suits are not substantially different. He submits that because the cause of action in the two suits may differ, there was no reason to dismiss the application at Exhibit 60 seeking consolidation of the two suits. He relies on Prem Lala Nahata & Anr. V/s. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, (2007) 2 SCC 551. in support of his submissions.

4. Mr Gaonkar defends the impugned order based on the reasoning reflected therein. First, he submits that severe prejudice will occasion the respondents if the two suits are consolidated. He presents that the trial would be embarrassed. Finally, he presents that there is no jurisdictional error and the decision relied upon by Mr Sawant is inapplicable or, in any case, supports the respondents' case on the issue of the proper exercise of discretion by the Trial Court in such matters.

5. Considering the material on record, I agree with Mr Gaonkar that the impugned order discloses no jurisdictional or other error to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Moreover, from the record, as noted by the Trial Court, it appears that only one of the issues in the two suits is common. Otherwise, the causes of action and the parties are different. Therefore, merely because one of the issues is common, no party can insist on consolidating the two suits.

6. In Prem Lala Nahata and Anr. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court has wide discretionary power to control the conduct of proceedings where there has been a joinder of causes of action or of parties which may embarrass or delay the trial or is otherwise inconvenient. In that situation, the Court may exercise power either by ordering separate trials of the claims in respect of two or more causes of action included in the same action or by confining the action to some of the causes of action and excluding the others or by ordering the plaintiff or plaintiffs to elect which cause of action is to be proceeded with or which plaintiff should proceed and which should not or by making such other order as may be expedient.

7. The Court also held that the Court has the power to consolidate suits in appropriate cases. Consolidation is a process by which two or more causes or matters are, by order of the Court, combined or united and treated as one cause or matter. The main purpose of consolidation is to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. The jurisdiction to consolidate arises where two or more matters or causes are pending in the Court, and it appears to the Court that some common question of law or fact arises in both or all the suits or that the rights to relief claimed in the suits are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions; or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order consolidating the suits.

8. Thus, it is clear that the Court has the power to consolidate. Still, such power is mainly to facilitate the trial of all the suits without embarrassing the trial in each case sought to be consolidated. In this case, the Trial Court has given cogent reasons why consolidation would not facilitate the trial in the two suits. The Trial Court, in paragraph 17 of the impugned order, has pointed out how the trial in the consolidated suits would not be convenient. The Trial Court has pointed out that the other issues in the