1

wp741.22 Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.741 OF 2022

Pramod Vishwanath Somani,

Age; 62 years, Occ; Business,

R/o; Mundada Market, City

Survey No. 2072, Parola Road,

Dhule, District; Dhule.

...PETITIONER

(Orig. Defendant)

VERSUS

1.

Ajay Balkisan Mundada,

Age; 54 yers, Occ; Business,

2.

Sunil Balkrishna Mundada,

Age; 52 years, Occ; Service

Both R/o; City Survey No. 1606/B,

Lane No. 6, Dhule,

Taluka & District; Dhule.

3.

Sanjay Balkisan Mundada,

Age; 56 years, Occ; Business,

R/o; Panchwati, Deopur,

Dhule, District; Dhule.

...RESPONDENTS.

(Orig. Plaintiffs)

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.934 OF 2022

Vijaykumar Vishwanath Somani,

Age; 72 years, Occ; Business,

R/o; Mundada Market,

City Survey No. 2072,

Parola Road, Dhule,

District; Dhule.

...PETITIONER

(Orig. Defendant)

2

wp741.22 Judgment

VERSUS

1.

Ajay Balkisan Mundada,

Age; 54 years, Occ; Business,

2.

Sunil Balkishan Mundada,

Age; 52 years, Occ; Service,

Both R/o. City Survey No. 1606/B,

Lane No. 6, Dhule,

Taluka & District; Dhule.

3.

Sanjay Balkisan Mumdada,

Age; 56 years, Occ. Business,

R/o; Panchwati, Deopur,

Dhule, District; Dhule.

...RESPONDENTS

(Orig. Plaintiffs)

………………………………………

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Subodh P. Shah

Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to : Mr.Mukul S. Kulkarni

………………………………………

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 10.10.2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

1.

Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent

of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, heard finally at

the stage of admission.

2.

Respondents herein have instituted two suits. RCS No.

406 of 2012 is instituted against Vijaykumar Vishwanath Somani

3

wp741.22 Judgment

seeking eviction from shop No. 5 and Shop No. 2. RCS No. 407 of

2012 is instituted against Pramod Vishwanath Somani seeking his

eviction from shop No. 4. Vijaykumar and Pramod are the real

brothers. It is undisputed position that one of the common grounds

pleaded in both the plaints for seeking eviction is the demolition of

Wall between Shop Nos. 4 and 5. Thus, on the same ground of

demolition of common wall of shop Nos. 4 and 5 the eviction of Vijay

and Pramod from their respective properties is sought by the

plaintiffs by filing RCS No. 406 and 407 of 2012. An application filed

by defendants for clubbing both the suits has been rejected by the 3^rd

Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule by order dated 25.08.2021,

which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petitions.

3.

Mr. Shah, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners

would submit that since there is a common ground for seeking

eviction of Vijay and Pramod in two suits, it is appropriate that the

two suits are to be heard and decided together. He would submit

that by doing so the valuable time of the Court would be saved in

proving same documents in two suits. Mr.Shah has relied upon the

decisions of the Apex Court in Chitivalasa Jute Mills Vs. Jaypee Rewa

Cement 2004 (3) SCC 85 and State Bank of India Vs. Ranjan

Chemicals Ltd. and Another (2007) 1 SCC 97.

4

wp741.22 Judgment

4.

Per contra, Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for

respondents opposes the petitions. He raises preliminary objection of

suppression of facts by petitioners while filing of the present petition.

He also submits that the filing and decision of transfer application by

the District Judge was not disclosed in the application seeking

clubbing of two suits. He relies upon application made by petitioners

before the District Court on 11.02.2014 for transfer of two suits, RCS

No. 407 of 2012 in the Court which was hearing RCS No. 406 of

2012. He also invited my attention to the orders passed by the

District Judge on 03.04.2014 allowing said application.

5.

Mr. Kulkarni, would further submits that after passing o