CR No. 5422 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5422 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.4.2009 Karamvir .. Petitioner v. Harjinder Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. C. B. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the respondents. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 17.9.2007, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for being impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit filed by respondents No. 1 to 7 against respondents No. 8 to 14, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents No. 8 to 14 agreed to sell the property in dispute to the petitioner vide agreement to sell dated 18.7.2002 for a total consideration of Rs. 16,80,000/-. Rs. 4,00,000/- were paid as earnest money. Last date for execution of sale deed was fixed as 28.2.2003. On 27.2.2003, on payment of another sum of Rs. 1,70,000/-, the date for execution of sale deed was extended upto 14.7.2005. When respondents No. 8 to 14 failed to execute the sale deed on the date fixed, suit was filed by the petitioner for possession by way of specific performance on 1.9.2005. Immediately having come to know about the filing of the suit by the petitioner, respondents No. 8 to 14 got a suit filed on 6.10.2005 from their sons for possession on the basis of will dated 19.2.1999 executed by their grand father in their favour. Grand father expired on 16.6.2002. Even mutation was also sanctioned on 30.5.2003. In the subsequent suit filed by respondents No. 1 to 7, respondents No. 8 to 14 had filed a consenting written statement. It was submitted that by filing the subsequent suit with regard to the same property, interest of the petitioner has been totally jeopardised. His claim in the suit will frustrate as the subsequent suit was filed by respondents No. 1 to 7 in connivance with respondents No. 8 to 14 to deprive the petitioner of his rightful CR No. 5422 of 2007 [2] claim. It was submitted that unless the correct facts are brought to the notice of the court in the suit filed by respondents no. 1 to 7 claiming possession on the basis of will, interest of the petitioner will suffer, as both the suits are pertaining to the same property and the suit filed by the petitioner is prior in time. The submission is that either the petitioner be impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit filed by respondents No. 1 to 7 against respondents No. 8 to 14 or trial of both the suits be clubbed. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 7 submitted that in the suit filed by them for possession on the basis of Will, the petitioner cannot possibly be said to be an interested party as the same will change the nature of the suit. However, very fairly he stated that he does not have any objection in case trial of both the suits is clubbed. Considering the aforesaid fair stand of the parties, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice, if trial of both the suits, i.e., one filed by the petitioner for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell and another filed by respondents No. 1 to 7 for possession on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by their grand father on 19.2.1999, with regard to the same property are clubbed together. Accordingly, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri is directed to entrust the trial of both the suits, in case the same are not pending in one court, to one court, to be tried together. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 28.4.2009 mk