ORDER 1. The petitioner filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 11.3.2017 by which application under section 10 of the CPC has been rejected. 2. The present petitioner being a plaintiff filed the Civil Suit No.19-A/2011 in the year 2008 seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent in respect of land bearing Survey No.269/2 (Area 7250 sq.ft) and the Temple constructed therein. The respondent has also filed the suit which is registered as Civil Suit No.83-A/2015 in respect of the land of Survey No.269/2 (Area 2,51,284 sq.ft) along with building and civil structures therein. 3. According to the respondent, they purchased the said property by way of auction in a Company Petition No.2/2001 decided order dated 21.7.2008 by the registered sale deed was executed in their favour on 12.9.2008. They have been granted possession on 12.1.2005. In their plaint, they have disclosed about the earlier suit filed by the present petitioner and stated that the trustees are trying to interfere into the peaceful possession, which gave them cause of action to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 4. In the subsequent suit filed by the respondent, the present petitioner filed an application under section 10 of the CPC that for the same property they have already filed the Civil Suit No.19-A/2011, therefore, as per section 10 of the CPC, the proceedings of the subsequent suit are liable to be stayed. 5. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 11.3.2017 has rejected the application for want of necessary document and certified copy of the earlier plaint. The present petitioner filed the suit in respect of the suit property Survey No.269/2 on the basis of lease dated 1.1.1992, which was executed for the period of 30 years only in respect of area 7250 sq.ft., whereas, the respondent filed the Civil Suit No.83-A/2015 for the area 2,51,284 sq.ft which they have purchased by way of auction. 6. Though, the survey numbers are same, but the relief claimed by the plaintiffs in both the suits are different for the land having different areas. The earlier suit is based on the lease and the subsequent suit is based on the registered sale deed. In either suit, the defendants therein can file cross suit claiming title, therefore, both the suits are maintainable in respect of title. The earlier suit is based on the lease and the subsequent suit is based on the registered sale deed. In either suit, the defendants therein can file cross suit claiming title, therefore, both the suits are maintainable in respect of title. At the most, the proceedings of the both the suits can be consolidated because the evidence is common in both the suits and parties are also same, therefore, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 11.3.2017. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in case of Gupte Cardiac Care Centre and Hospital v. Olympic Pharma Care (P) Ltd., reported in 2005(I) MPWN 65 (SC), has held that instead of allowing the application under section 10 has directed the trial Court to consolidate the proceedings of both the cases. Relevant portion is reproduced below : "T.P.(C) No.400/2003 is allowed. Suit No.190/2002 pending in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (Civil Original Ordinary Jurisdiction) is directed to be transferred to the Court of Civil Judge S.D. Nashik at Nashik. Both the suits shall be consolidated for the purpose of trial. The learned Civil Judge seized of the trial may frame consolidated issues taking into consideration the pleadings in both the cases, and thereafter, set down the cases for consolidated trial." 8. The apex Court in case of Prem Lala Nahata and another v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, reported in AIR 2007 SC 1247 , has held as under : "16. It cannot be disputed that the Court has power to consolidate suits in appropriate cases. Consolidation is a process by which two or more causes or matters are by order of the Court combined or united and treated as one cause or matter. The main purpose of consolidation is, therefore, to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. The jurisdiction to consolidate arises where there are two or more matters or causes pending in the Court and it appears to the Court that some common question of law or fact arises in both or all the suits or that the rights to relief claimed in the suits are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions; or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order consolidating the suits. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 37, paragraph 69). If there is power in the Court to consolidate different suits on the basis that it should be desirable to make an order consolidating them or on the basis that some common questions of law or fact arise for decision in them, it cannot certainly be postulated that the trying of a suit defective for misjoinder of parties or causes of action is something that is barred by law. The power to consolidate recognised in the Court obviously gives rise to the position that mere misjoinder of parties or causes of action is not something that creates an obstruction even at the threshold for the entertaining of the suit." 9. In view of the above, petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Judge, Ratlam to consolidate both the Civil Suits i.e. C.S.No.19-A/2011 and C.S.No.83-A/2015 for analogues hearing.