JUDGMENT 1. - Babulal plaintiff-petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order of the learned Additional Civil judge (Sr. Div.) No. 1, Jodhpur dated 10.5.1996 passed in civil original suit No. 310/95 by which he dismissed the application of the petition filed under Section 151, C.P.C. for consolidating the suits Nos. 253/95 and 310/95. 2. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it is necessary to refer to the facts and pleadings of both the suits sought to be consolidated by the petitioner. 3. Suit No. 310/95 : This suit was filed by Lachha Ram against Babulal for declaration and permanent injunction. Plaintiff Lachha Ram died during the pendency of the suit and his LR's were brought on record. The plaintiff has got three daughters but no son. The plaintiff has alleged that since the plaintiff has got no son, the defendant falsely represented that he is the adopted son of the plaintiff. In that capacity he is trying to usurp the properties of the plaintiff. In that connection defendant also filed suit No. 175/87 before the S.D.O., Bhilwara claiming as the adopted son of the plaintiff Lachha Ram. The defendant also averred in that suit that he was adopted by the plaintiff Lachha Ram in accordance with the Hindu religion and rites. The above suit was dismissed on 25.1.1988. The plaintiff, therefore, feels aggrieved by the misrepresentation made by the defendant that he is the adopted son of the plaintiff Lachha Ram. He, therefore, filed this suit and prayed the Court to declare that defendant Babulal is not the son of the plaintiff Lachha Ram and he should not act as such. The defendant filed written statement in which he denied the averments made by the plaintiff and categorically stated that the plaintiff adopted him as his son because the former had no son. The adoption was done in accordance with the Hindu Law. He, therefore, prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. Suit No. 253/95 : This suit was filed by Babulal against Shardool Singh and Lachha Ram (now LR's) tor declaration that the sale deed dated 6-2-1988 is ineffective. The plaintiff Babulal alleged that since defendant Lachha Ram has no son, he adopted the plaintiff as his son in accordance with the Hindu Law. After adoption he became a member in the joint family of defendant Lachha Ram. The plaintiff Babulal alleged that since defendant Lachha Ram has no son, he adopted the plaintiff as his son in accordance with the Hindu Law. After adoption he became a member in the joint family of defendant Lachha Ram. However relations between the plaintiff and Lachha Ram became strained in the year 1987. Thereupon Lachha Ram gave a threat that he would dispose of his agricultural land. The plaintiff and other relatives tried to persuade the defendant not to do so but the defendant paid no heed. Feeling apprehensive the plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of S.D.M. Bhilwara on 26-11-1987 for declaration and injunction but the same was dismissed. He has filed an appeal which is pending before the Revenue Appellate Authority II, Jodhpur. The plaintiff has alleged that defendant No. 1 who was the counsel of defendant No. 2, taking advantage of the bad relation between the parties misled the defendant Lachha Ram and succeeded in obtaining the sale deed from the defendant Lachha Ram in respect of the land described in para 7 of the plaint by a registered sale deed dated 6-2-1988. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed that the above sale deed was void, illegal and obtained by fraud. He, therefore, prayed that the above sale deed be declared illegal, invalid and void. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioners. 6. It was admitted before me that suit Nos. 253/95 and 254/95 have been consolidated. For consolidating suits No. 253/95 and 310/ 95 Babulal petitioner filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. praying for consolidation of the above suits on the ground that the question of adoption is the main question involved in both the suits. In one suit the adoption had been pleaded and in the other it is being averred that Babulal is not an adopted son of Lachha Ram. The other relief is incidental to this main relief. If both the suits are allowed to proceed separately, likelihood of conflicting decrees being passed cannot be ruled out. The contesting parties are the same. The subject matter is thus normally identical. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party has vehemently opposed the above application and supported the order of the learned trial Court. A few decisions have been cited on behalf of both the parties. In Motilal Chunilal Rathorev. The contesting parties are the same. The subject matter is thus normally identical. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party has vehemently opposed the above application and supported the order of the learned trial Court. A few decisions have been cited on behalf of both the parties. In Motilal Chunilal Rathorev. Pani Bai, AIR 1992 Orissa 155 it was held that when two suits are pending in the same Court between the same parties and having the same matter in issue, public policy of early finality would call for exercise of inherent powers under Section 151, C.P.C. to direct analogous hearing. In Peer Gulam Naseer v. Mst. Rehmani (1991) 1 Raj LW 279 , this Court analysed the provisions of Sections 10 and 151, C.P.C. with regard to the consolidation of two suits and it was held that there is no inherent conflict in the principle underlying the Section 10, C.P.C. and the inherent powers of the Court to consolidate different suits. The object of both these Sections is to prevent multiplicity of litigation between the same parties. The order of consolidation of suits is not governed by any specific provision of C.P.C. but if falls within the ambit of the inherent powers of the Court. In Ved Prakash v. Amar Singh, (1996) 1 Raj LW 339 the facts were that two suits were filed by two alleged purchasers on the strength of independent agreement to sell in their favour in respect of the same land. To avoid two decrees, two suits were ordered to be consolidated and dispose of together. 8. It may also be stated that in this connection the Courts normally invoke the provisions contained in Section 24, C.P.C. for travel of suits where both the suits involved the same parties and questions to be decided are substantially the same. That is done in order to prevent conflicting decrees being passed in the above suits. 9. After having considered the rival contentions and appreciating the law involved, II am of opinion that these two suits must be ordered to be consolidated because the parties are the same and the crucial question for determination is whether Babulal is the adopted son of Lachha Ram or not. The other issues are incidental and depend upon the decision of this material issue. I am aware that if such an order is passed, it will not prejudice to any party. 10. The other issues are incidental and depend upon the decision of this material issue. I am aware that if such an order is passed, it will not prejudice to any party. 10. For the above reasons, I accept the revision petition and order that the suit No. 310/95 and suit No. 253/95 be consolidated and the trial Court will dispose of the same in accordance with the law early. No orders as to costs.Petition allowed. *******