R. K. MAHAJAN, J. This is a writ peti tion in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 8-1-1990 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) and directing the 1st Addi tional District Judge to consolidate all the three cases and decide the same. 2. This case has an interesting history. It appears that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for possession against the respondent. The suit was decreed exparte on 10-10-1977. In pursuance of the order the possession was delivered on 24-11-1977. Restoration application was filed and ultimately the ex pane decree was set aside and the case was allowed to proceed on merits. In the mean time application for restitution was also moved by the defendant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned lower court should have decided the restitution applica tion and main suit and another Misc. ap plication for recall of the restoration under Order 4-A, C. P. C. added by Act No. 57 of 1976. The rule provides consolidation of suits and proceedings when two or more suits are pending in the same court and the court is of the opinion that it is expedient and in the interest of justice, it may by order direct their joint trial, whereupon all such suits and proceedings may be decided upon the evidence in all or any such suits or proceedings. 4. The Legislature has emphasized on the word "trial". It is matter of common knowledge that miscellaneous application filed in the suit have to be disposed as and when occasion arises and those applications cannot be disposed of simultaneously. This was not intention of the Legislature. The intention of the Legislature was that if two or more proceedings are pending and in order to avoid conflict the proceedings may be consolidated. In support of his case learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case reported in Mis Sindhasini Chemicals Process Plant and Equipment, Vtshnupuri, Kanpur v. XIV Additional Dis trict and Sessions Judge, Kanpur and another. In support of his case learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case reported in Mis Sindhasini Chemicals Process Plant and Equipment, Vtshnupuri, Kanpur v. XIV Additional Dis trict and Sessions Judge, Kanpur and another. In this case it was held: "consolidation of cases-Suit filed by landlord in court of Additional District Judge for recovery of arrears of rent-during pendency of suit another suit filed by landlord in Civil Court for injunction restraining tenant from damaging building-suit in Civil Court transferred to Addi tional District Judge-Application by landlord for consolidation of suits rejected by Additional Dis trict Judge-Order of rejection without considering Order IV-A suffers from error apparent from face of record and has to be quashed. " It was regarding proceeding of another suit which were allowed to be consolidated and in that event the lower court happened to make observation. 5. Shri Rajesh Tandon, learned coun sel for the respondent has submitted that different set of petitioners, plaintiffs filed revision in the High Court at different stages and the revisions were dismissed. 6. Shri Rajesh Tandon further sub mitted that there is one suit and one ap plication for recall of restoration i. e. Misc. Application and another is restitution ap plication. He has relied upon 1996 R. D. 20 Nityanand Tripathi and others v. IIIrd Addi tional District Judge, Mirzapur and others on the proposition that once a decree is set aside it is obligatory to restore ante status quo as the suit may go for two generations. In the aforesaid case ruling of Privy Council was relied. 7. It is quoted as under: "it is settled law that restoration is obligatory once a decree is set aside. It is the duty of the Court to grant restitution in such cases. In the case of Mrs. Kavita Trehan v. Balsara Hygienic Product Limited the Supreme Court had examined the earlier decisions of the house of Lords and Privy Council and also of the Supreme Court regarding the duty of the Court to grant restitution. Thus, in the case of Jai Berham and others v. Kedar Nath Marwari and others, AIR 1922 P. C. 269, Privy Council observed: "it is the duty of court under Section 144, C. P. C. to place the parties in the position which they would have occupied, but for such decree or such part thereof as has been varied or reversed. Nor indeed does this duty or jurisdiction arise merely under the said Section. It is inherent in the general jurisdiction of the court to act rightly and fairly according to the circumstances towards all parties involved. " 8. Reliance has also been placed on judgment of Honble Supreme Court Binayak Swain v. Ramesh Chandra Panigrahi (1966) 3 SCR 24 . In this case the Honble Supreme Court observed as under: "the principle of the doctrine of restitution is that on the reversal of a decree, the law imposes an obligation on he party to the suit who received the benefit of th erroneous decree and the Court in making restitution is bound to restore the par ties so far as they can be restored to the same position they were in at the time when the court by its erroneous action had displaced them from. " 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Suit is to be expedited as soon as pos sible and the restitution application has to be decided independently as they are two different matters. Miscellaneous applica tion has already been disposed of by the High Court and it cannot be repaginated again and again. In view of the discussion, Order 4-A, C. P. C. added by Act No. 57 of 1976 is not applicable and as such the ap plication under Order 4-A is not sus tainable. Order accordingly .