JUDGMENT : A.K. Padhi, J. - The orders of appellate authority as well as the revisional authority negativing the claims of the Petitioners as the tenants (Bhagchasis) under opp. party No. 1 are challenged in this writ application. 2. The Petitioners who are ten in number sought declaration as Bhagchasis under the deity, opp. party No. 1 u/s 15(1)(b) of the Orissa land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). The petitions were numbered as O.L.R. Case Nos. 1356, 1360, 1366, 1369, 1370, 1407, 1412, 1413, 1414 and 1415 of 1976. In the claim petitions the Petitioners averred that opp. party No. 1 Shri Radhakanta Deb is the owner of A. 1.31 decimals of land. Out of this A. 1.31 decimals, nine Petitioners claimed tenancy right regarding specific A. 0.13 decimals of land while one Petitioner claimed A. 0.14 decimals and prayed for such declaration. Opp. parties 2 and 3 filed objections and claimed to be Bhagchasis under the deity for the total land of A. 1.13 decimals and refuted the claim of the Petitioners. 3. All the O.L.R. cases were clubbed together and one set of evidence was adduced by both the sides, after converting the cases to one u/s 16 of the Act, as the identity of the tenants were in dispute. The learned O.L.R. Court by order dated 30-10-1978, declared the Petitioners to be the Bhagchasis under the deity and not the opp. parties 2 and 3 (Annexure-2). Opp. parties 2 and 3 being aggrieved by the orders of the learned Tahasildar carried two appeals which were numbered as O. L. R. Appeal Nos. 501 of 1978 and 504 of 1978. The learned appellate Court also heard both the appeals together and disposed of it by one common judgment and dismissed the appeals. 4. Opp. parties 2 and 3 carried two revisions which were numbered as O.L.R. Revisions 215 and 216 of 1980. The learned revisional Court by its order dated 23rd December, 1981 allowed the revisions and held that opp. parties 2 and 3 were the tenants under the deity (opp. party No. 1) and not the Petitioners. The main plank of argument on behalf of the Petitioners is that as the Petitioners had filed independent applications u/s 15(1)(b) which were allowed, the opp. parties were bound to file 10 appeals and 10 revisions. parties 2 and 3 were the tenants under the deity (opp. party No. 1) and not the Petitioners. The main plank of argument on behalf of the Petitioners is that as the Petitioners had filed independent applications u/s 15(1)(b) which were allowed, the opp. parties were bound to file 10 appeals and 10 revisions. Though the learned Tahasildar had clubbed together all the applications u/s 15(1)(b) and had disposed of all the applications in one judgment, still as claim of each of the Petitioners was allowed ten appeals should have been filed. Regarding the merits of the case the Petitioners submit that the authorised agent's statement was unverified and should not have been accepted by the revisional authority. In support of the above submissions, the learned advocate for the Petitioners relies on 41 (1975) CLT 714 Abdul Rahim and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. The learned advocate for the opp. parties 2 and 3 on the other hand, submits that: (a) though 10 applications were filed but in fact they are one and the same as the boundary given by each of the Applicants same; (b) that the application of each of the Applicants being identical, and as they claimed joint tenancy, it is one dispute; and (c) that as all the cases were clubbed together and one set of evidence was adduced and one judgment was passed two appeals were maintainable; and in support of the above submissions the learned advocate for the opp. parties relies on Karunakar Panda Vs. Durgabati Bewa and Others ILR 1970 Cutt. 814 Kalituki Sahuani v. Sodi Buchiamma and Ors. AIR 192 Cal. 135 Moosa Soleman Salehji and Ors. v. Secretary of State and AIR 1928 Mad. 463 Perumal Nadar and Ors. 5. Regarding the merit of the case the learned revisional Court by taking into consideration the evidence of the boundary witnesses examined by opp. parties 2 and 3, the Jamabandi Register, submitted to the Tahasildar containing the names of the opp. parties as tenants and the admission of the authorised agent and disbelieving the evidence adduced on behalf of the Applicants has given the finding that the opp. parties 2 and 3 were tenants and the Petitioners were not the tenants under opposite party No. 1 regarding the total land of A. 1.31 decimals. parties as tenants and the admission of the authorised agent and disbelieving the evidence adduced on behalf of the Applicants has given the finding that the opp. parties 2 and 3 were tenants and the Petitioners were not the tenants under opposite party No. 1 regarding the total land of A. 1.31 decimals. This being a finding of fact which has been arrived at by the revisional authority after taking into consideration all the material evidence on record both documentary and oral and, in our opinion, is a correct finding, cannot be assailed in this writ application. 6. The next question which arises for consideration is as to whether opp. parties 2 and 3 could have challenged the orders passed in ten O.L.R. Cases, in two appeals. Ten applications relating to different parcels of land, claimed by each of the Applicants were allowed by one order, as all the petitions were heard analogously. Only two appeals were filed against all the orders. The contention of the opp. parties 2 and 3 that as the disputed property relates to one compact area and though separate applications were filed the Petitioners claimed joint tenancy, under one landlord, hence in one appeal, all the orders could have been challenged, is not tenable in law. Ten different applications were filed by 10 different Applicants claiming different parcels of land. Though all the applications were heard analogously and one common judgment was passed, opp. parties 2 and 3 were required to file ten appeals as each dispute retained individual identity. This view of ours finds support from 41 (1975) CLT 714 (supra). 7. In Karunakar Panda Vs. Durgabati Bewa and Others, his lordship considering the principle of res judicata, held that the bar of res judicata is not created by a decree but by a decision and further his lordship observed that where the suits or appeals raise only common issues for decision and there has been one finding and one decision and appeal against only one decree in one suit, it will not be barred by res judicata by not filing an appeal against the decree in the other suit. But where the subject-matter of each of the two suits or appeals are different and the decision in the two proceedings, though decided in one judgment, really amounts to two decisions and not one decision an appeal filed against the decision in one proceeding will be barred by the rule of res judicata if no appeal is filed against the decision in the other proceeding. 8. AIR 1928 Mad. 463 (supra) has no application to this case as the question arose there for consideration as to whether one vakalatnama can be accepted for several appeals when all the appeals were consolidated. 9. In Moosa Soleman Salehji and Others Vs. Secretary of State, has also no application to this case. In that case the question arose for consideration before their lordships was as to whether appeals may be consolidated into one appeal before High Court. 10. In Sheodan Singh Vs. Smt. Daryao Kunwar, it was held that where the trial Court has decided two suits deciding common issues on the merits, and there were two appeals there from, the decision in one appeal will operate as res judicata in the other appeal. 11. ILR 1970 Cut. 814 (supra) is a case which is similar to the present case. Several tenants had filed applications u/s 11A of the Orissa Tenancy Relief Act and in all the applications tenancy right was claimed under the same landlord. All the applications filed by different tenants were clubbed together and were heard together and one common judgment was delivered. As the claims filed by the tenants were rejected all the tenants filed a joint appeal. The appellate Court accepted one joint appeal but dismissed the same as not maintainable, on the ground that 15 tenants claiming 15 independent rights, were required to file 15 appeals. The second appellate Court, being moved, allowed it and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry. The order of the second appellate Court was challenged in this Court. His lordship opined that one appeal was maintainable as the landlord was same, though the tenants were different. In our opinion, the principle laid down in ILR 1970 Cuttack is not applicable to this case. 12. In Lonankutty Vs. Thomman and Another. relying on AIR 1962 S.C. 339 Badri Narayan Singh v. Kamdeo Prasad Singh and Anr. His lordship opined that one appeal was maintainable as the landlord was same, though the tenants were different. In our opinion, the principle laid down in ILR 1970 Cuttack is not applicable to this case. 12. In Lonankutty Vs. Thomman and Another. relying on AIR 1962 S.C. 339 Badri Narayan Singh v. Kamdeo Prasad Singh and Anr. their Lordships observed: The circumstance that the District Court disposed of the 4 appeals by a common judgment cannot affect the application of Section 11 because as observed in Badri Narayan Singh Vs. Kamdeo Prasad Singh and Another even where 2 appeals arise out of one proceeding and even if the appeals are disposed of by a common judgment, the decision in that judgment may amount to 2 decisions and not to one if the subject-matter of ea chappeal is different. The case before us is stronger still for the application of Section 11 because the appeals filed in the District Court arose not out of one proceeding but out of two different suits, one by the Appellant and the other by the Respondents. The failure of the Respondents to challenge the decision of the District Court in so far as it pertained to their suit attracts the application of Section 11 because to the extent to which the District Court decided issues arising in the Respondents' suit against them, that decision would operate as res judicata since it was not appealed against. 13. u/s 57 of the Act some of the provisions contained in the CPC are to be followed by the Revenue Officers. Section 58 which provides an appeal reads as follows: Any person aggrieved by an order passed under any of the following sections may prefer an appeal to the prescribed authority. and decisions u/s 15 and 16 are appeal able. 14. Rule 42 of the Land Reforms Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules') lays down the procedure for filing of appeal. From Section 57, 58 of the Act and Rule 42 of the Rules, it is clear that while adjudicating disputes under the Act some provisions of the CPC expressly and at her provisions so far as may be applied to a proceeding are to be followed. Thus Orders 41 and 42 of the CPC would govern so far as they may be to the appeals u/s 58 of the Act. Thus Orders 41 and 42 of the CPC would govern so far as they may be to the appeals u/s 58 of the Act. The power of clubbing of all the petitions together as identical facts arose in between the parties was inherent in the Revenue Officers. But while disposing of such claims in one judgment the Revenue Officer in fact disposed of 10 separate claim petitions, i.e., the Revenue Officer decided 10 independent disputes. Though the learned Revenue Officer was called upon to dispose of 10 independent disputes of rival tenancy in between the Petitioner and opp. parties 2 and 3. In this case since it is a case of rival tenancy though the landlord is common to the Petitioners and the opp. parties 2 and 3, the dispute between the Petitioners and the opp. parties 2 and 3 are not one and the same. Each is a separate dispute vis-a-vis a single Petitioner on one side and opp. parties 2 and 3 on the other side. 15. Even though ten appeals were required to be filed and opposite parties 2 and 3 had preferred only two appeals as against the decision in the ten independent claims and in view of our earlier conclusion the decision in dispute cannot be challenged in two appeals, yet it is open for the Appellants, who are opposite parties 2 and 3 in this case, to restrict the two appeals against two of the cases. On being questioned, Mr. Misra appearing for opp. parties 2 and 3 submitted that the two appeals would be in respect of applications filed by Bula Kandi, son of Uchhab Kandi (O.L.R. Case No. 1407 of 1976) and by Moti Bewa, wife of Shankar Kandi (O.L.R. Case No. 1356 of 1976). In this view of the matter, the order of the revisional authority is affirmed so far as it relates to the afore said two cases and is set aside so far as it relates to other eight cases, namely, O.L.R. Case Nos. 1360, 1366, 1369, 1370, 1412, 1413, 1414 and 1415 of 1976. The writ application is accordingly allowed in part, but in the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs. G.B. Pattnaik, J. 16. I agree. Writ application allowed. Final Result : Allowed