Caveat discharged. 1. This LPA is directed against the common judgment and order dated 29th of July, 2010 whereby SWP Nos 1619/2006, 2/2007 and 1654/2009 came to be determined. Registry has raised objection that appellant has to file three appeals. Mr. Jan argued that the appellant is not required to file separate appeals because of the fact that writ petitions came to be decided by a common judgment. The argument of Mr. Jan is not tenable for the following reasons. 2. In terms of Rules 49 and 50 of High Court Rules 1999, for short as Rules, appeals are to be preferred in the form of memorandum in accordance with the provisions of Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short as Code, and in terms of mandate of Rule 54 of the Rules, the provision of Code are applicable. It is apt to reproduce proviso to Rule 1 of Order XLI of the Code herein:- "Provided that where two or more suits have been tried together and a common judgment has been delivered therefor and two or more appeals are filed against any decree covered by that judgment, whether by the same appellant or by different appellants, the appellate court may dispense with the filing of more than one copy of the judgment." Proviso supra specifically provides that if two or more suits have been tried together and a common judgment has been delivered and two or more appeals are filed by the same appellant or by different appellants, the appellate court may dispense with the filing of more than one copy of the judgment. 3. Thus it is crystal clear that if a party is aggrieved of the common judgment wherein two or more suits have been tried together it has to file two ore more appeals against that common judgment and cannot question the common judgment by the medium of one appeal. 4. This question also came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this court in CMP No. 200/2004, was decided vide order dated 9th of December, 2004. It is apt to reproduce relevant part of the judgment herein:- "The correct statement of law would be to file as many appeals as the writ petitions were before the court. 4. This question also came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this court in CMP No. 200/2004, was decided vide order dated 9th of December, 2004. It is apt to reproduce relevant part of the judgment herein:- "The correct statement of law would be to file as many appeals as the writ petitions were before the court. The facts and the law applicable to the dispute involved in two writ petitions being similar, can be decided by a common judgment but the law does not permit to file only one appeal against the said judgment." 5. In the given circumstances we are of the considered view that law does not permit to file only one appeal against common judgment. At this stage learned counsel Mr. Jan stated that this appeal be treated to have been filed against the judgment passed in SWP No. 2/2007. Ordered accordingly, leaving the appellant free to file separate appeals against the judgment passed in SWP Nos. 1619/2006 and 1654/2009. Objection is accordingly answered. LPA No. 129/2010 is taken on board. Issue notice. On asking Mr. Magray, ld. Sr. AAG accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1-3 and Mr. M. Y. Bhat, advocate waived notice on behalf of respondents 4-6. Registry to keep the writ record available on next date of hearing. List in the week commencing from 6th of December, 2010 subject to availability of Bench.