ORDER A.N. Varma, J. - This revision is directed against the orders passed by the courts below by which the trial court has recalled its order consolidating three suits. 2. It appears that there were three suits pending before the trial court, namely, suit No. 222 of 1972, No. 491 of 1972 and 255 of 1974. I am informed that as a result of a joint statement of the parties those three suits were allowed to be consolidated. However, it appears that by a subsequent order dated 27-1-1977 when facts were brought to the notice of the court that the pleadings of the three cases were different from each other and that in original suit No. 255 of 1974, filed by Ayodhya Das the only defendant was Amrit Das and Govind Sahay was not a party to that suit, the trial court came to the conclusion that it was not proper to consolidate the three suits. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed a revision which has been dismissed by the learned District Judge as not maintainable. Against the aforesaid orders, this present revision has been filed. 3. Learned counsel challenging the orders passed by the courts below, has urged that the trial court had passed an order consolidating three suits on a joint statement made by the parties counsel and consequently, it was not open to. the court to review that order and decide and dispose of the three suits separately. 4. In my view, there is no force in this submission of the learned counsel. It is settled law that in the course of a trial, the court passes several routine orders not touching the substantive rights of the parties and that such orders can always be reviewed by the courts at subsequent stages. (Vide AIR 1964 SC 993 ). The order deciding to dispose of the three suits simultaneously was not an order which had vested any substantive rights in the parties and consequently, it was open to the learned Civil Judge to recall its earlier order when the correct facts were brought to his notice. In my view, the learned Civil Judge has not committed any error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. The order is based upon legitimate consideration, namely, that the pleadings in the three suits are different and that the parties are not common. In my view, the learned Civil Judge has not committed any error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. The order is based upon legitimate consideration, namely, that the pleadings in the three suits are different and that the parties are not common. On this ground the decision of the trial court to try the suits separately cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or arbitrary. 5. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 6. The stay order is vacated. Revision dismissed.