Honble TIWARI, M.—This is a revision under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the impugned order dated 12.5.1999 of Assistant Collector (Sub-Division Officer) Banswara passed in Suit No. 78/1998 filed under Section 188 of the Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case leading to this revision are that non-petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit under Section 188 of the Act against the applicants-defendants in the Court of Assistant Collector, Banswara. During the pendency of this case, applicant-defendants filed an application under Section 10 of C.P.C. for stay of the suit on the ground that a Suit No. 93/1997 under Sections 88, 92-B and 183 of the Act was already instituted between the same parties pertaining to the same disputed land in the same Court, which was still pending before the Court. Assistant Collector by the impugned order dated 12.5.1999 dismissed the application on the ground that the parties in the both the cases are not just the same and relief sought in both the cases are different. Aggrieved against this order of 12.5.1999, the instant revision is filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants. Before the learned counsel for the non-petitioner could proceed to argue, it was proposed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since in both the cases parties are practically the same and land in dispute is just and same, both the cases may be consolidated under the inherent power of the Court under Section 151 C.P.C. and decided together. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has agreed to this proposal. 4. I have given thoughtful consideration to the consensual proposal of both the learned counsels, perused the impugned order and gone through the record. 5. Perusal of the record shows that two different suits, Suit No. 93/1997 under Sections 88, 92-B and 183 of the Act and Suit No. 71/1998 under Section 188 of the Act with regard to the same dispute khasra number between practically same parties are pending in the same Court. These cases have been pending before the Court for more than 10 years. In the interest of justice and for the expeditious disposal of these long pending cases, matters may be allowed to be clubbed and consolidated. These cases have been pending before the Court for more than 10 years. In the interest of justice and for the expeditious disposal of these long pending cases, matters may be allowed to be clubbed and consolidated. I am fortified in holding this view by the pronouncement of Honble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2004 SC 1687 wherein Honble Apex Court has propounded that such suits can be consolidated and decided together in exercise of inherent power of the Court under Section 151 C.P.C., as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses. 6. Accordingly, the aforementioned two suits are allowed to be consolidated for the purpose of trial and decision. The trial Court will frame consolidated issues. the parties are relieved of he need of adducing the same or similar documentary and oral evidence twice over in the two suits at two different trials. The evidence having been recorded, arguments need to be addressed followed by one common judgment. However, as the suits are two, the Court may, based on any judgment draw two different decrees or one common decree to be placed on record of both the suits. 7. The revision is disposed of accordingly. Pronounced.