ORDER : Heard Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite ervice of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent. 2. The petitioners/defendants have filed the present revision seeking to set aside the order dated 11.11.2022 in I.A.No.390 of 2022 in O.S.No.8 of 2016 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda. 3. Perusal of the record would reveal that the respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.8 of 2016 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda against the petitioners/defendants seeking perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners herein from forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the suit schedule property as long as he pays the lease amount to the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property i.e. H.No.19-2 part, 4th shop admeasuring 10sq.yards, Pooja Medical Hall situated at Shakuntala and Raghava Talkies complex, Church Road, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District. 4. 3rd petitioner/3rd defendant filed O.S.No.310 of 2021 against the respondent/plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction restraining the respondent/plaintiff from evicting her from shop bearing part in D.No.19-2 part (Shop No.4) in Sy.No.727 to 730 admeasuring 10sq.yards situated at Church road, Shankuntala and Raghava Talkies Complex, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District and for recovery of arrears of rent. 5. During pendency of the said suits, the petitioners herein have filed I.A.No.390 of 2022 in O.S.No.8 of 2016 to club O.S.No.8 of 2016 with O.S.No.310 of 2021 on the following grounds:- i. Suit schedule properties in both the suits are one and the same. ii. Parties are also common. iii. O.S.No.310 of 2021 is posted for defendant side evidence. iv. If the petitioners/defendants are allowed to lead evidence, there is a chance of multiple and conflicting judgments in O.S.No.8 of 2016 in the event of which, they will suffer irreparable loss and injury. 6. The said Interlocutory Application was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff on the following grounds:- i. The allegations made by the petitioners are false and baseless. ii. The reasons mentioned by the petitioners seeking to club both the suits together are untenable. iii. The subsequent suit has to be stayed. iv. Respondent/plaintiff shall be subjected to irreparable loss and injury in the event of clubbing of suits. 7. Vide Impugned order dated 11.11.2022, learned Principle Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda dismissed the said application on the following grounds:- i. The suit schedule properties and defendants are same in both the suits. ii. iii. The subsequent suit has to be stayed. iv. Respondent/plaintiff shall be subjected to irreparable loss and injury in the event of clubbing of suits. 7. Vide Impugned order dated 11.11.2022, learned Principle Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda dismissed the said application on the following grounds:- i. The suit schedule properties and defendants are same in both the suits. ii. Whereas, defendant No.3 is the sole plaintiff in the subsequent suit i.e. O.S.No.310 of 2021. iii. The suit schedule property is clearly described in O.S.No.8 of 2016 but the suit schedule property in O.S.No.310 of 2021 is not clear as defendant No.3 just mentioned that Door No.19-2 is 35 sq.yards only. The defendant mentioned Door No.19-2 shop Nos.1 to 3 in one compact as suit schedule property from which it can be understood that Door No.19-2 is containing some other shops with numbers amongst which portion is the suit schedule property is not clarified by the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.310/2021. iv. The prayer in O.S.No.310 of 2021 is for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. v. Only one defendant is present in O.S.No.310 of 2021 and other defendants in O.S.No.8 of 2016 are not parties to O.S.No.310 of 2021. vi. Defendant No.3 did not state the clear portion in suit schedule property as disclosed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 8 of 2016 and therefore, O.S.No.310 of 2021 cannot be clubbed with O.S.No.8 of 2016. vii. The subsequent suit be stayed till disposal of the present suit as the result of the present suit will bind on all the defendants but the result of subsequent suit shall not be binding on the defendants as only one defendant has filed O.S.No.310 of 2021 against the plaintiff. 8. Sri P.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the parties and suit schedule properties are common and to avoid conflicting judgments, clubbing of both the suits is necessary. Despite specific contentions, the Court below did not consider the same and dismissed the application. The petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injury in the event of conducting trial in both the suits separately. With the said submissions, he sought to set aside the impugned order and allow I.A.No.390 of 2022. FINDINGS OF THE COURT:- 9. There is no specific provision for clubbing of suits in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’). With the said submissions, he sought to set aside the impugned order and allow I.A.No.390 of 2022. FINDINGS OF THE COURT:- 9. There is no specific provision for clubbing of suits in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’). The said power can be exercised by a Court under Section 151 of CPC. The inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of CPC can be exercised to consolidate two or more suits or joint trial of suits. The issue of consolidation/ clubbing of suits for conducting joint trial is no more res integra. 10. In B.Santoshamma vs. D. Sarala, (2020) 19 SCC 80 , the Apex Court held that clubbing of suits for hearing them together and disposal thereof by a common judgment and order is for practical reasons. Such clubbing together of the suits do not convert the suits into one action. The suits retain their separate identity. The clubbing together is done for convenience, inter alia, to save time, costs, repetition of procedures and to avoid conflicting judgments. 11. In Mahalaxmi Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel, (2013) 4 SCC 404 , the Apex Court held that suits consolidated/clubbed together retain their separate identity. The said principle was also relied upon by the Apex Court in B.Santhoshamma (supra). 12. In Anurag And Co. Vs. Addl. Dist. J., AIR 2006 Raj 119 , the Rajasthan High Court has laid down certain conditions with regard to consolidation of suits in paragraph No.28 and the same is extracted below:- 28. The upshot of aforesaid discussion of judgment is that some of the relevant circumstances for consolidating the civil suits are as follows:- (i) The parties are substantially the same. (ii) Complete or even substantial and sufficient similarity of the issues arising for decision in two suits. (iii) Common evidence is to be led, if parties are substantially the same, if only one party is common then burden of proof of facts in issue will be on different person and no common evidence can be led. (iv) The consolidation in the aforesaid circumstances will fulfill the object of consolidation. Any other circumstances may be relevant then also the object of consolidation will be decisive for passing appropriate order. 13. (iv) The consolidation in the aforesaid circumstances will fulfill the object of consolidation. Any other circumstances may be relevant then also the object of consolidation will be decisive for passing appropriate order. 13. In Nalamati Latchanna vs Masina Sriramulu, 1993 (1) ALT 26 , High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that in cases where parties are common and matter is absolutely similar, to avoid multiplicity of suits and to eliminate chances of conflicting decisions on the same point, consolidation of two or more suits can be ordered. Whereas, however, suits brought by the same plaintiff are prima facie based on different and independent transactions, the consolidation cannot be ordered, as there cannot be conflicting decisions. 14. In Boddula Rajesham vs. Mahmooda Begum, MANU/AP/0095/2007 wherein the parties to both the suits are common and suit schedule property is also one and the same but at different stages, it was held by the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh as follows: It would be appropriate to decide both the matters together to avoid not only conflicting decisions but also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is true that the disposal of O.S. No. 56 of 2000 would be delayed, but clubbing of both the suits is essential to decide the rival claims effectively and it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to any of the parties by adopting such procedure. 15. In M/s Mahaveer Enterprises Vs. NSOFT India Services Pvt. Ltd., Order dated 28.07.2022 in W.P.No.13459 of 2022, Karnataka High Court held as follows:- Though the clubbing of suit is a matter of convenience, the Court has ample power under Section 151 of CPC to club the suits so as to avoid different trails and to render separate judgments. 16. In Royal Bank of Scotland Plc Vs. Impressions, 2018 SCC Online Cal 4493, High Court Calcatta held as follows:- Though the issues may not be same, but same set of evidence and witnesses would be required to prove the respe ive issues, and it is just and convenient that both the suits are tried together as it would not only minimize time but also save expenses. It is proper that both the suits are heard analogous. The Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has an inherent power to direct consolidation of the suits. 17. In Chitivalasa Jute Mills Vs. It is proper that both the suits are heard analogous. The Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has an inherent power to direct consolidation of the suits. 17. In Chitivalasa Jute Mills Vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement, (2004) 3 SCC 85 , the Apex Court held as follows:- The Code of Civil Procedure does not specifically speak of consolidation of suits but the same can be done under the inherent powers of the Court flowing from Section 151 of CPC, Unless specifically prohibited, the Court has inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Consolidation of suits is ordered for meeting the ends of justice as it saves the parties from multiplicity of proceedings, delay and expenses. Complete or even substantial and sufficient similarity of the issues arising for decision in two suits enables the two suits being consolidated for trial and decision. The parties are relieved of the 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, common arguments need be addressed followed by one common judgment. However, as the suits are two, the Court may, based on the common judgment, draw two different decrees or one common decree to be placed on the record of the two suits. 18. In Mangali Satukuri Anjaiah Vs. Nethi RajaiahMANU/AP/1400/2003, the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:- The power of the Court to order consolidation of suits, clubbing of suits or joint trial of suits by exercising powers under Section 151 of CPC cannot be in any way doubted. 19. In Nand Kishore Vs. Ram dev, (2002) SCC online P&H 274, Punjab and Haryana High Court, held as follows:- while dealing with the powers of the Court under Section 151 of CPC for consolidation of suits, the Court viewed that where the subject matter of two suits are identical and if both the suits are allowed tobe tried separately and they are decreed, it would result in rendering contradictory judgments on the same subject matter. Consolidation of such suits will be necessary for doing complete justice to the parties. 20. The similar view was also expressed in Shantilal Khushaldas and Brothers Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Consolidation of such suits will be necessary for doing complete justice to the parties. 20. The similar view was also expressed in Shantilal Khushaldas and Brothers Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Raghuvir R Painguinkar, 1990 (2) GoaLT 193 Panaji Bench and Navin Pal Kaur Vs. Raja Ram, 1997 (1) Civil Court Cases 19 and in Dasari Suryanarayana Vs. Dasari Venkata Subbaiah, AIR 1960 AP 75 . 21. In Kali Charan Dutt Vs. Surja Kumar Mandal, 17 Cal W.N.526 it was held as follows:- An order for consolidation can be made in a proper case in exercise of the inherent power of the Court now recognized by Section 151 of CPC. 22. The sum and substance of the aforesaid judgments is that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to club the suits and to conduct joint trial, it is a matter of convenience. The Court has power under Section 151 of CPC to order consolidation of suits, for practical reasons and for convenience of the Courts and also to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting judgments, expenses and delay. It helps prevent rendering different judgments. When the cause of action and issues raised in two or more suits are similar, the Courts can exercise power under Section 151 of CPC by consolidation of suits. 23. In view of the aforesaid legal position, coming to the facts of the case on hand, as discussed supra, the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.8 of 2016 filed O.S.No.310 of 2021 for perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiff in O.S.No.8 of 2016 from evicting her from the suit schedule property and also to pay arrears of rent. O.S.No.8 of 2016 filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the petitioners/defendants seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from unlawfully evicting from the suit schedule property. 24. Perusal of the suit schedule property in both the suits would reveal that in O.S.No.8 of 2016, suit schedule property is mentioned as H.No.19-2 part, 4th shop admeasuring 10sq.yards, Pooja Medical Hall situated at Shakuntala and Raghava Talkies complex, Church Road, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District and in O.S.No.310 of 2021 as part in D.No.19-2 part (Shop No.4) in Sy.No.727 to 730 admeasuring 10sq.yards situated at Church road, Shankuntala and Raghava Talkies Complex, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District and for recovery of arrears of rent. In both the suit schedule properties boundaries are mentioned as East: Kumar Selections, West: Sai Srinivasa Emporium, North: Church road and South: Raghava Talkies road. Thus, the parties are common and the suit schedule properties are also common. Therefore, according to this Court both the suits can be consolidated and tried together. 25. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahalaxmi Coop. Housing Society Ltd (supra), two suits consolidated/clubbed together retain their separate identity. Even the trial Court can pass a common judgment and decree. No prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.8 of 2016. Consolidation and conducting of joint trial would prevent rendering different judgments, avoid multiplicity of proceedings, expenses and delay. The said aspects were not considered by the Court below in the impugned order dated 11.11.2022 in I.A.No.390 of 2022 in O.S.No.8 of 2016. Therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside. 26. In view of the above discussion, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 11.11.2022 in I.A.No.390 of 2022 in O.S.No.8 of 2016 is set aside. I.A.No.390 of 2022 is disposed of. Learned Prl. Junior Civil Judge at Miryalaguda shall consolidate both the suits O.S.No.8 of 2016 and O.S.No.310 of 2021 together and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.