The main legal point established is that under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has inherent powers to consolidate suits to prevent conflicting judgments and ensure complete justice to the parties.

Amar Bir Singh Gill, J. - This revision petition is against order dated 28.02.1995 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Mansa, declining the consolidation of two suits pending before him.

2. The controversy, in brief, is that the petitioner had filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction for directing respondents No. 1 and 2 to demolish and remove encroachment made by them on 13.4.1993 on a public place thereby obstructing a thoroughfare which is part of big chowk and that the respondents have nothing to do with the suit land. The said encroachment was made illegally without any title inspite of the fact that the Municipal Committee had rejected the sanctioning of the site plan. Respondents No. 1 and 2 likewise filed a Civil suit No. 108 of 1993 titled Ram Dev v. Municipal Committee, Mansa, for a permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Committee and its President, respondents No. 3 and 4, from demolishing the alleged encroachment on the disputed land claiming themselves to be the owners of the said site. The present petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Civil Suit No. 108 of 1993 for impleading him as a defendant and consolidation of suits to avoid multiplicity of suits but the same was declined vide order dated 22.5.1993 holding that these two suits cannot be consolidated. The petitioner claimed that since the subject-matter in both the suits is directly and substantially the same as well as the evidence to be produced by either of the parties for and against would be the same, both the suits need to be consolidated so that complete justice be done to the parties.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. It is apparent from the brief narration of facts above that these two civil suits pertained to one and the same subject-matter i.e. a structure which the present petitioner claimed to be encroachment on the public land, whereas the respondents claimed the same belonging to them as owner. In the suit filed by the present petitioner, he is seeking a mandatory injunction for removal of alleged encroachment from the site in question by the respondents, whereas in Civil Suit No. 108 of 1993, respondents No. 1 and 2 are seeking permanent injunction against the Municipal Committee itself for restraining the latter from removing the structure from the same site. The Court below did not permit consolidation of the suits simply because parties to both the suits were not same as Nand Kishore, the present petitioner, was not a party in the other suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 108 op 1993, and only respondents No. 1 to 4 were party in the that suit. It has been observed by the Court below as under :-

".........The matter in issue is also not the same as in other suit, the matter in controversy is that whether the Municipal Committee is to be restrained from demolishing the encroachment allegedly made by the respondents No. 1 and 2, whereas in the present suit the question in controversy is whether a mandate can be issued directing the respondent No. 1 and 2 to remove the alleged encroachment made by them........"

The above observations of the Court below are itself sufficient to hold that the subject-matter of these two suits is identical and it both the suits are allowed to be tried separately and they are decreed, it would result in rendering contradictory judgments on the same subject-matter as in the suit filed by the petitioner the decree would amount to holding the disputed structure as encroachment and a direction for its removal, whereas in the suit filed by the respondents, the decree would restrain the Municipal Committee from removing the same very structure. The sole question i.e. the controversy between the parties is regarding the status of the disputed structure, if the site belonged to respondents or if it is encroachment on the public land. As such, both the suits were required to have been consolidated under section 151 of the Code of Civil Pr