CR 17 of 2008. 29.2.2008 Present: Mr. S.D.Gill, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG, for respondent No. 2. This revision petition has been instituted by the petitioners against the order of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nadaun, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P., passed in an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that they be impleaded as parties in the suit, as the petitioners had a subsisting interest in the subject matter of the suit and had also instituted another suit titled Bhagwan Dass etc. versus State of H.P. and Haria, being Civil Suit No. 42 of 2006. The plaintiff – respondent contested the application on the ground that the applicants had no right, title or interest in the suit land, it is in possession of the plaintiffs and that they are not necessary parties in the case. Learned trial Court held that the plaintiff being the dominus litis in the matter, -2- it was for him to decide whom to implead as defendant etc. The Court further observed that there was no evidence on record to show that the applicants remained in possession of the suit land. It also held that in Civil Suit 42 of 2006, the applicants had failed to lay any foundation for possession of the suit land and it was filed subsequent to the institution of the present suit. The learned trial Court has completely misdirected itself on the questions of law and fact involved. Suffice it to say that so far as the question of evidence is concerned, it is not to be furnished alongwith the application but an opportunity given to the parties to lead such evidence whether oral or documentary. The learned Court below has acted without jurisdiction in ignoring the fact that trying both the suits separately may lead to a conflict of decrees. The fact that the plaintiff in the suit and the applicants are laying claim to the suit land on different factual foundations would itself show that the suits should be tried together. It is by now well settled that there is ample power in the Court to consolidate suits -3- which involve common questions of fact. (See Gupta v. East Asiatic Co., AIR 1960 All 184; Bokaro & Co. v. State, AIR 1973 Pat 340; Guru Prasad v. Bijoy Kumar, AIR 1984 Ori 209). This revision petition is, therefore, disposed of with the directions to the trial Court to ascertain as to whether the suit filed by the applicants involves the same property or not. In case the answer is in the affirmative, then both the suits should be consolidated and tried together. Order accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. February 29, 2008(PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.