On considering the arguments of both learned counsel we are of opinion that it was not proper for the petitioners to file a single petition, in respect of all the 23 cases. There are 23 separate applications pending before the Anti-Ejectment Officer, Bayana, in which there are different applicants. Twenty-three separate applications for revision were filed by the petitioner No. 2 in 23, cases although they were disposed of by the Board of Revenue by a single judgment. Separate writs' or directions or orders would, therefore, be necessary in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners in this case are entitled to any of them. In case the same questions of law and fact are involved, it may be that this Court might consider it proper to decide all the petitions under Article 226 by a single judgment. Still the orders, directions or writs, which might be issued, will have to be issued separately in respect of each case. It would, therefore, be very inconvenient, even if not altogether illegal, chat writs, directions or orders, as might be felt necessary, might be issued on a single omnibus petition in respect of all the 23 cases.
