JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jaitaran (Pali) in Original Suit No. 73/2014 - Siddhi Vinayak Cement v. Baldev Ram & Ors. rejecting the application filed by the defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, with the following observations:- " i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"Vr;k izdV gksrk gS fd okn lhfu;j vkWfQlj yhxy fueZy flag pkSgku }kjk is'k fd;k x;k gS rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k ysVj vkWQ vFkksfjVh miyC/k gSA ;fn bl laca/k esa izfdz;k ;k rF;ksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ foHksn gS rks ;g fcUnq lk{;ksijkar gh r; fd;k tk ldrk gS] izxVr% okn ysVj vkWQ vFkksfjVh gksYM fueZy flag }kjk is'k fd;k tkus ls ckMZ ckbZ ykW ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA izfroknh la[;k 2 us jkT; ljdkj dks i{kdkj u cuk;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij Hkh okn ckMZ ckbZ ykW gksuk of.kZr fd;k gS] ysfdu okn esa oknh }kjk uqdlkuh dk vuqrks"k ;k izR;{k vuqrks"k ugha pkgk x;k gS] blfy;s jkT; ljdkj dks i{kdkj u cuk;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij okn ckMZ ckbZ ykW ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS] oSls Hkh ;g fcUnq izfrokn i= esa mBk;k x;k gS tks okn fopkj.k vafre :i ls fuLrkj.k ;ksX; gSA mijksDr foospukuqlkj izfroknh dze la[;k 4 dh vksj ls is'k izkFkZuk&i= vUrxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lifBr/kkjk 151 lh0ih0lh0 Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; u ik;s tkus ij vLohdkj fd;k tkdj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA Sd/- ( lanhi 'kekZ ) vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] tSrkj.k ikyh " 2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.N.R.Choudhary relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. Kingston Computers India Pvt. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 524 and urged that the Company had filed a suit without proper authority in favour of Nirmal Singh Chouhan, Senior Legal Officer of the respondent-Company, and the State has not been impleaded as defendant, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Company, Mr.Sunil Beniwal has supported the impugned order. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Company, Mr.Sunil Beniwal has supported the impugned order. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that both the parties have filed separate suits for cancellation of the sale deeds in favour of opposite party, namely, Civil Suit No. 75/2014 - Ranjeet Prakash Singh v. M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Civil Suit No.73/2014 - M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Cement v. Baldev Ram & Ors. (present suit). 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that no interference in the impugned order is called for. There is no error in the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. The objections raised by the defendants requires evidence, and therefore, the suit deserves to be tried on merits. All the more, both the parties have filed separate suits, as above, against each other seeking cancellation of sale deeds in favour of opposite party. Both the suits deserve to be tried simultaneously. Therefore, the learned District Judge, Pali shall consolidate the trial of both the suits, namely, Civil Suit No.75/2014 - Ranjeet Prakash Singh v. M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Civil Suit No.73/2014 - Siddhi Vinayak Cement Pvt. Ltd. v. Baldev Ram & Ors. and assign the same to one court, and that court would be expected to expedite the trial of both the suits simultaneously. 5. Accordingly, the present revision petition of the defendant in Suit No.73/2014 - Siddhi Vinayak Cement Pvt. Ltd. v. Baldev Ram & Ors. is disposed of. No costs. Copy of this order may be sent to the concerned parties as well as the learned courts, including the District Judge, Pali below forthwith.Revision dismissed. *******