circumstances. Therefore, if it necessitates the examination of witnesses and the line of cross-examination on the same basis. A reading of the written statements in all four suits shows that the facts pleaded are in verbatim the same insofar as the genesis of the borrowing and the allegations of creation of the documents by obtaining signatures or thumb marks on different documents. Therefore, in these circumstances, merely because the reliefs are different, the causes of action in the plaint are different, and the plaintiffs are different, it cannot be said that there is no commonness. So, if these suits are tried by different courts, there is every possibility of different views and conflicting decisions. As such, the ground that there would be a loss of right of appeal to the party cannot take away the need to have, though not a common trial, simultaneous adjudication of the suits. It is not only in this case, in any other case where there is a need to have a simultaneous adjudication or common trial between a case pending before a District Court and a case pending before a court of Junior or Senior Civil Judge, it would have the same consequence of loss of appeal to the next forum, but the same is not a ground to refuse the transfer of a case in a befitting matter. Therefore, the learned District Judge failed to appreciate that
