Civil Revision No. 1019 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision : 1.4.2010 1. Civil Revision No. 1019 of 2010 (O&M) Sukhdev Singh ... Appellant vs Dara Singh .... Respondent 2. Civil Revision No. 1023 of 2010 (O&M) Sukhdev Singh ... Appellant vs Dara Singh .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P. S. Thiara, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K. D. S. Sodhi, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of aforementioned petitions as the common question of law and facts is involved. The facts have been extracted from Civil Revision No. 1019 of 2010. Challenge in the petition is to the order dated 7.1.2010 passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for placing the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff from Civil Suit No. 155 dated 31.5.2003 titled as Sukhdev Singh vs Dara Singh in Civil Suit No. 156 dated 2.6.2003 between the same parties and similarly the application filed in the other suit was for transferring the evidence from Civil Suit No. 156 to Civil Suit No. 155. The applications having been rejected, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed civil suit for recovery of Rs. 2,39,000/- against the respondent on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 15.4.2002 which was registered and numbered as 155. Another suit was filed against the same respondent for recovery of Rs. 2,54,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 2.3.2001 which was numbered as 156. Both the suits were being tried by the same court. Evidence in the shape of two affidavits was tendered on 11.6.2004 and further on 31.1.2006. However, inadvertently on the title of the affidavit, the suit number was mentioned wrongly as the parties were same. Immediately when the error came to the knowledge of Civil Revision No. 1019 of 2010 -2- the petitioner-plaintiff, the application was filed for transfer of the evidence inter- se between two suits and further for consolidation thereof. The prayer for transfer of the evidence from one suit to another suit having been rejected, the petitioner has approached this court. Relying upon judgments of this court in Jaipal Singh Sibia vs Ashwani Kumar Bansal 2002 (3) R. C. R. (Civil) 18, Satbir Singh and others vs Smt. Har Kaur 2007 (3) R. C. R. (Civil) 607, and judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jet Ply Wood Private Limited and another vs Madhukar Nowlakha and others 2006 (2) R. C. R. (Civil) 593, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that error being unintentional and bonafide, the petitioner-plaintiff should not be made to suffer on that count. In the present case two suits were being tried between the parties, in the same court, on the same day and this was the reason for the error. The technicalities should not come in the way of substantial justice. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-defendant submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff who had filed the suit was well aware of the numbers thereof and it could not be imagined that he had signed the affidavits to be filed as his examination-in-chief, without reading the contents thereof. It is too late in the day to move such applications as the entire evidence is now over. He further submitted that the respondent had even cross-examined the witnesses on the basis of evidence produced on record in the respective cases. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. The fact that the petitioner-plaintiff had filed two suits against the same defendant for recovery of the amount claimed therein is not in dispute. Both the suits were being tried by the same court and were numbered as 155 and 156. The only difference being the amount claimed therein otherwise the claim was based on pronotes and receipts only. Considering the aforementioned facts the error, which has been committed while mentioning the suit number on the affidavit of evidence filed by the petitioner-plaintiff in the two suits, cannot be said to be intentional rather a bonafide mistake on account of which the petitioner-plaintiff should not be made to suffer. The petitioner-plaintiff was not going to gain anything while filing affidavit of evidence containing the facts of one case in the another case. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order passed by the learned court below is set aside and it is directed that the evidence led by the petitioner-plaintiff in suit no. 156 be transferred and read as evidence led in 155 whereas the evidence led in suit no. 155 be transferred and read as evidence in suit no. 156. Civil Revision No. 1019 of 2010 -3- Least the the defendant-respondent suffer any prejudice on account of having cross-examined the witness(s) produced by the petitioner-plaintiff on account of the fact that correct evidence was not on record, the defendant- respondent will be permitted to cross-examine the witness(s) produced by the petitioner-plaintiff after the evidence in both the cases is inter-changed. The petitions are allowed subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs in each petition to the respondent-defendant. 1.4.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge