C.R. No. 6122 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.R. No. 6122 of 2008 Date of decision: February 2,2009 Man Singh and another ..Petitioners Versus Subhash Chand and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. J.S.Chahal, Advocate for the respondents ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. Petitioners have filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 25.8.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhari whereby application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 for impleading the petitioner as party in Civil Suit No.36/25.1.2007 titled as Subhash Chand and others Versus Jai Pal pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhari, has been dismissed. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition as alleged by the petitioners are that respondent No.3 was owner in possession of land measuring 26 kanals 3 marlas comprised in Khewat Khatauni of Rakba Khewat/ Khatoni No.6/6 Khasra No. 3/119, 22, 20/3/2, 4//16/13, 2 Kite 6 Tadadi Raqba 25 Kanals 18 Marlas and Khewat/ Khatoni No.10/10 Khasra No. 4/116/1/2, 25/2 Killa 2 tadadi Raqba 1/3 of 15 Marla total tadadi 26 kanals 3 marlas situated at Milk Jabalian Had Bast No.139. Respondent No.3 entered into an agreement dated 1.10.2004 to sell the aforesaid land to the petitioners. As per this agreement, respondent No.3 C.R. No. 6122 of 2008 2 agreed to sell the land at the rate of Rs.5, 15,000/- per acre and a sum of Rs. 4 lacs was paid as earnest money to respondent No.3 on 9.10.2004. Petitioners paid another sum of Rs. 1 lac to respondent No.3 by depositing the amount in the account of his wife. Petitioners were also inducted into possession in October 2004 by the respondent No.3. The petitioners sowed Sugarcane crop in the said land. Respondent No.3 failed to perform his part of the agreement. Thus the petitioners were constrained to file Civil Suit in Civil Court at Jagadhari seeking the specific performance of the agreement bearing Civil Suit No. 208 of 2005. The aforesaid civil suit is pending at Jagadhari in the court of Mrs. Neerja Kulwant Kalson, Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jagadhari. It has been further averred by the petitioners that respondent No.3 made an attempt to take forcible possession of the aforesaid land from the petitioners. However the matter was brought to the notice of the police and a compromise was effected between the parties in front of the police authorities on 9.1.2007 and the same was recorded in the form of DDR 28. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.3 with a view to cheat the petitioners had fabricated ante dated agreement in connivance with respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners have also lodged a complaint with the police who after preliminary inquiry got FIR No.47 dated 29.3.2007 recorded under Section 406, 420 IPC against the respondents. Respondent No.3 in connivance with respondent Nos.1 and 2 got civil suit No. 36 of 2007 instituted against him by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for possession by way of specific performance of the same land which is the subject matter of the agreement between the petitioners, basing their claim on the basis of forged and fabricated agreement dated 9.6.2004. The petitioners moved an application seeking impleadment of the petitioners as party in the aforesaid suit. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 opposed the said application by filing reply. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhari vide impugned order dated 25.8.2008 has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners for being impleaded in the aforesaid suit illegally and on untenable C.R. No. 6122 of 2008 3 ground as the petitioners are proper and necessary parties to the suit especially in view of the fact that the said suit has been filed by the respondents in collusion with each other merely to defeat the rights of the petitioners. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the petitioners have prayed that the impugned order be se aside and the petitioners be ordered to be impleaded as party in the aforesaid suit titled as C.S. No.36/2007- Subhash Chand Versus Jai Pal. The revision petition has been contested by the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have also field an application for their impleadment in Civil Suit No.208 of 2005 titled as Jagir Singh and another Versus Jai Pal filed by the petitioners which is pending in the court of Mrs. Neerja Kulwant Kalsan, Civil Jduge (Senior Division),Jagadhari. The aforesaid application for impleadment filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division),Jagadhari vide order dated 4.10.2007 passed in that civil suit. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred Civil Revision No.911 of 2008 against the aforesaid order dated 4.10.2007. This Court vide order dated 14.2.2008 disposed of the aforesaid revision petition by passing the following order:- “The petitioners assert a right on the basis of an independent agreement to sell, allegedly executed prior to the execution of the agreement to sell in favour of respondent No.3 who has also filed a suit for specific performance. As the petitioners have already field an independent suit for specific performance, they have no right to be impleaded as a party in the suit field by respondent No.3. However, liberty is granted to then petitioners to file an appropriate application before the trial Court or before the District Judge, Jagadhari to pass appropriate orders, either for consolidation of the suits or that both the suits be decided by the same court on the same date. C.R. No. 6122 of 2008 4 The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.” Learned counsel for the respondents have also brought to the notice of this court that in pursuance of the aforesaid order of the High Court passed in Civil Revision No.911 of 2008, the District Judge, Yamuna Nagar has passed the following order on 31.3.2008:- “Reply filed. Heard. In view of the order dated February 14, last passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the civil suit titled as “Subhash Chand and another Vs. Jai Pal” bearing No.26/2007 pending disposal in the court of Ms. Kumud Gugnani, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri is hereby withdrawn from the file of that court and is transferred on the file of the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri where the connected matter titled as “Jagir Singh and another Vs. Jai Pal” is currently pending disposal and is fixed for 25.8.2008 for recording evidence. The parties have been notified to appear before the transferee court on 1.4.2008 at 10 a.m. sharp. The Ahlmads to comply with the directions immediately. Consign the file to the records.” The court has ordered withdrawal of civil suit No.36/2007 titled as “Subhash Chand and another Vs. Jai Pal” from the court of Ms.Kumud Gugnani, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamunanagar at Jagadhari and has transferred the aforesaid case to the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamunanagar at Jagadhari where connected matter i.e. Civil Suit No.208 of 2005 titled as “Jagir Singh and another Vs. Jai Pal” is pending disposal. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts that both the suits are pending in the same court and that in both the suits parties are claiming possession of the land in dispute, which is same in both the suits, on the basis of different agreements to sell executed by respondent Jai Pal. It is also not in dispute that in Civil RevisionNo.911 of 2008 parties in both the cases were also arrayed as parties and this court taking into consideration of the fact that C.R. No. 6122 of 2008 5 independent suits have been filed by both the parties granted liberty to the petitioners in that revision to file an appropriate application before the trial court or before the District Judge, Jagadhari to pass appropriate orders either for consolidation of the suits or both the suits be decided by the same court on the same date. It will be in the interest of justice and for maintaining consistency of the judicial record, the same/similar order is passed in this revision petition giving liberty to the petitioners in Civil Revision No.6122 of 2008 to file an appropriate application before the trial Court or before the District Judge, Jagadhari either for consolidation of the suits or that both the suits be decided in the same court on the same date. Since the District Judge vide order dated 31.3.2008 has ordered for hearing of both the cases by one court, the petitioners shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the trial Court for consolidation of the suits. Thus, the revision petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the trial Court to pass appropriate orders for consolidation of the suits . February 2, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE