IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2316 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 6.4.2010. Padam Sain ....Petitioner Versus Meena and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated October 26, 2009 passed by the learned Court below in an application filed by the plaintiffs-respondents No. 4 and 5 in a suit for possession and petitioners- respondents No. 1 to 3 in rent petition seeking eviction of the petitioner from two different portion of shops. Prayer was made by the petitioner as well as plaintiffs before the Trial Court for transferring both the eviction petitions as well as suit to one Court as the same were pending in two different Courts. Learned District Judge, vide order dated October 26, 2009, directed that both be tried by one Court. The petitioner submitted that though the learned District Judge, transferred both the cases to be tried by one Court, however, these were not directed to be clubbed or kept on one date. Prayer is that the transferee Court shall be directed to take up either both the cases together or on one date. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submission made. The present petitioner was not the applicant before the Court below seeking transfer of the cases in one Court or to club the same. It was the application filed by the petitioners-respondents No. 1 to 3 in the rent petition and the plaintiffs-respondents No. 4 and 5 in the suit filed against the petitioner herein. They were satisfied with the order passed transferring the cases to one Court. The petitioner cannot possibly claim that relief or raise the objection that both should be clubbed and kept on one date, considering the fact that the stage of both the cases is different, as the suit for possession filed by the plaintiffs-respondents No. 4 and 5 is at the evidence stage and the rent petition filed by the petitioners-respondents No. 1 to 3 is at arguments stage. For the reasons mentioned above, the present revision petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 6.4.2010. JUDGE Reema