JUDGMENT Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the appellate court dated 28.4.2014 by which application of the petitioner for consolidation of all the appeals has been rejected. It is submitted that five different suits were filed by different parties with regard to the same property and the suits were being heard separately. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 49139 of 2000 (Anil Kumar Vs. District Judge, Bulandshahar and others) and this Court vide judgment and order dated 14.9.2006 directed the trial court to consolidate all the suits, namely, Suit Nos.93 of 1995, 37 of 1996, 188 of 1996 and 267 of 1986 and decide the same. However, liberty was granted to the trial court to take evidence separately or jointly, if it so required. 2. It seems that all the suits were heard together but the judgment has been given separately. Against each judgments five appeals have been filed. Therefore, the petitioner made an application for consolidating all the appeals. The appellate court while rejecting the aforesaid application has held that separate judgments have been given, therefore, five appeals have been filed and as such, there is no reason to consolidate all the appeals. The appellate court further has gone to hold that all the appeals will be heard together and will be decided together. If the appeals are being heard together and are decided together, whether they are consolidated or not makes no difference. 3. As such, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the court below on account of the fact that all the appeals have been directed to be heard together and decided together. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is dismissed.