JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code hereinafter) against the order dated 6-8-94 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Jodhpur District. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent-defendant (in Suit No. 316/93) instituted Suit No. 88/91, as plaintiff, against the present petitioner Bhanwar Lal and the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Chokha in the said court for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the plot and the house, described in para No. 1 of the plaint which is situated in Abadi Khasra No. 46, Solankian-Ka-Bas with the allegations that his father Joga Ram purchased this plot from the Mangi Lal, father of the petitioner-Bhanwar Lal, about 70 years back. It was further alleged that, initially, no document regarding transfer of the plot was executed but the possession was transferred by Mangi Lal to Joga Ram and since then they were in actual physical possession of the plot where on a pucca construction was already existing and the same was in use and occupation as a residence. Mangi Lal also executed a sale deed in respect of the disputed property in the year 1980. It was alleged that since the petitioner Bhanwar Lal (defendant in Suit No. 88/91) had raised a dispute about right, title and interest in the disputed property and he was threatening to illegally and forcefully oust the possession of Mishri Lal from the disputed property and it was further alleged that Sarpanch of the village connived with Bhanwar Lal and, therefore, presentation of the civil suit, as above. An application for temporary injunction was also filed with a request to restrain Bhanwar Lal from carrying out threats of the forcefully and illegally evicting him from the disputed property. However, the defendant Bhanwar Lal maintained that the suit property being of his own purchase from the Gram Panchayat was in permissive possession of the plaintiff. Consequently, the trial Court passed an interim order thereby injuncting them to maintain prevalent status quo in regard to the disputed property. 3. In the meantime, Bhanwar Lal petitioner filed a Suit No. 316/93, relating to the same property, against Mishri Lal, pleading that the disputed property belonged to him and the same was never transferred by his father to Mishri Lal or Joga Ram. 3. In the meantime, Bhanwar Lal petitioner filed a Suit No. 316/93, relating to the same property, against Mishri Lal, pleading that the disputed property belonged to him and the same was never transferred by his father to Mishri Lal or Joga Ram. Instead, it was further pleaded that this plot was purchased by him from the Gram Panchayat vide a sale deed dated 3-12-83 and he also obtained possession of the same and that he constructed two rooms and a kitchen on the plot. Since the disputed property was not under actual use as a residence of the plaintiff Bhanwar Lal, the defendant-Mishri Lal approached him to permit him to use and occupy the suit premises and to maintain the same for and on behalf of the plaintiff-Bhanwar Lal and it was on 15-8-82 that Bhanwar Lal delivered the possession of the suit property to Mishri Lal who is since then occupying the same. Thus, Bhanwar Lal has maintained throughout, in both suits, that he is the real owner of the disputed property and the possession of Mishri Lal was merely a permissive one. However, of later, with a dishonest and ulterior motive, Mishri Lal, with a view to grab the disputed property, advanced his claim before the village Gram Panchayat and also filed a suit for injunction as above, against Bhanwar Lal. 4. Therefore, Bhanwar Lal brought Suit No. 316/93 for possession of the suit property mesne profits as well as permanent injunction against Mishri Lal. 5. While both the suits were pending in the trial Court, Mishri Lal filed an application under Section 10 of the Code with a prayer that since the subsequent statement brought by the defendant-petitioner Bhanwar Lal relates to the subject-matter of the pending Suit No 88/91 and the subject-matters in issue directly and substantially in issue in both the suits are the same and the litigating parties are also the same and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 10 of the Code, the subsequent Suit No. 316/93 brought by Bhanwar Lal. be stayed The learned trial Court, after hearing the par ties, vide his impugned order dated 6-8-84, accepted the application thereby staying proceedings of Suit No. 316/93 and further ordered that the file of the suit be tagged with the file of pending Suit No. 88/91. Being aggrieved defendant-petitioner Bhanwar Lal has come in this revision petition as above. be stayed The learned trial Court, after hearing the par ties, vide his impugned order dated 6-8-84, accepted the application thereby staying proceedings of Suit No. 316/93 and further ordered that the file of the suit be tagged with the file of pending Suit No. 88/91. Being aggrieved defendant-petitioner Bhanwar Lal has come in this revision petition as above. 6. Mishri Lal-respondent was duly served more than once but he did not appear to contest this petition. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, perused the order besides the pleadings of the parties relating to both the suits and also considered the legality and regularity of the impugned order. 8. As regards the facts giving rise to the present petition, as narrated above, the same s re borne out of the impugned order as well as the plaints and the written statements of the contesting parties, produced before the court at the time of hearing. As a result, the disputed property in both the suits is the same. Though Mishri Lal respondent had also impleaded the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Chokhaas defendant No. 2 in the Suit No. 88/91, who is rot a party in subsequently instituted in Suit No. 316/93 but the present dispute is substantially between Mishri Lal and Bhanwar Lal, who are mainly disputing about the right, title and interest in the disputed property. Mishri Lal also admits that the disputed property belonged to Mangi Lal, who is father of Bhanwar Lal and it was Mangi Lal, who sold the same to Mishri Lal. This is seriously disputed by bhanwar Lal. Bhanwar Lal claims his title tlirough the Gram Panchayat, Chokha, who alleges that he had purchasd the plot vide a sale deed executed by the Gram Panchayat in his favour. 9. In Suit No. 88/91, the plaintiff-Mishri Lal has sought a decree for declaration of his title as an owner of the suit property besides a permanent injunction against Bhanwar Lal. On the contrary, Bhanwar Lal has claimed decree for possession of the same property besides mesne profits for use and occupation by Mishri Lal from damaging the suit property. 10. In view of this matter, the property under dispute and the subject-matter as such in both suits is the same. On the contrary, Bhanwar Lal has claimed decree for possession of the same property besides mesne profits for use and occupation by Mishri Lal from damaging the suit property. 10. In view of this matter, the property under dispute and the subject-matter as such in both suits is the same. The issue of title and possession is directly and substantially is in issue in the previously instituted Suit No. 88/91 as well as in Suit No. 316/93, subsequently instituted. The trial Court has got jurisdiction to r.rant reliefs claimed in both the suits and has t; us got jurisdiction to try and decide both the suits. 11. Thus, there is a dispute of title and Mishri Lal has claimed the reliefs of declaration for his ownership in the disputed property whereas, claiming his own title in the same property, Bhanwar Lal has claimed possession of the same property and consequently, reliefs Bhanwar Lal as well as Mishri Lal have claimed in both the suits, are not one and time. In case the Suit No. 88/91 filed by Mishri all respondent is decided in his favour, it would not result in automatic grant or refusal of r lief sought by present petitioner-Bhanwar Lal in his Suit No. 316/93. Therefore, the learned trial Judge, cannot be held to be justified in ordering stay of proceedings of Suit No. 316/93 filed by Bhanwar Lal. This has resulted in unnecessary delay/suspension of trial and decision of the suit. The learned Civil Judge could have pondered over the issues whether it was just and convenient to consolidate both the suits or to try them together and decide the same either by a common judgment or by separate but simultaneous judgments. There is every likelihood that the evidence led by the either side will be common in both the suits. That being so, the trial Court can conveniently record the evidence of both the suits together, as per prevalent rules. 12. In the result, looking to the purport, object and intent of Section 10 of the Code, when disposal of Suit No. 88/91 would not automatically result in either dismissal or disposal of the Suit No. 316/93, there could not be any legal purpose of keeping its proceedings under suspension. 13. 12. In the result, looking to the purport, object and intent of Section 10 of the Code, when disposal of Suit No. 88/91 would not automatically result in either dismissal or disposal of the Suit No. 316/93, there could not be any legal purpose of keeping its proceedings under suspension. 13. In view of this position, the learned trial Judge has acted in exercise of his jurisdiction with a serious illegality as well as with material irregularity and, as a result, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and, consequently, this revision petition merits acceptance. 14. In the result, this revision petition succeeds. The impugned order is set aside and it is ordered that the Suit No. 316/93 shall be restored to its original No. with immediate effect and the same will be proceeded with the Suit No. 88/91. It will be within the judicial discretion of the trial Judge to either try both the suits separately but simultaneously or to consolidate and decide the same together. No order as to cost.Revision allowed. *******