1. Though I would be most reluctant ordinarily to interfere with a discretionary order passed by a subordinate court, in this case I am clearly satisfied that the learned judge has not exercised that discretion properly, after considering the several matters arising for decision. The grounds on which the learned Subordinate Judge has consolidated all these eight suits as against the defendants are that "on the pleadings it is clear that all these suits are for money due on cheques issued for price of rubber sold to the first defendant. The first defendant contends in all these cases that the alleged delivery of rubber is not true and that the cheques are not genuine and the company is not liable for the amount claimed. The issues raised on these contentions are common issues. That the plaintiffs are not the same in all the cases is not a valid objection". These are the reasons given by the learned judge for consolidating the eight suits (including the one before me, namely, 0. S.203 of 1958) filed by the several plaintiffs as against the defendants for recovery of amounts due to them which according to the plaintiffs represent the value of goods supplied by the several