IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 155 of 2011 Date of decision: 20.9.2011 Inderjit Kalra ….Petitioner. Versus Smt. Trilochan Kaur and others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1, 2 and 4: Mr. G.D.Verma Sr. Advocate with Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondent No. 6: Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate. _____________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.3.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Court No.4, Shimla rejecting the application of the petitioner for staying the suit filed by respondents No. 1 to 5. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the present petitioner purchased a share in the property known as Exchange Building, The Mall, Shimla. According to the petitioner he obtained sanction from the Municipal Corporation for construction of the building and started raising construction thereupon. Thereafter he filed Civil Suit No. 18-1 of 2010, which was listed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.2, 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Shimla and in the said suit on 30th March, 2010 an ex- parte ad-interim injunction was passed restraining the present respondents No. 1 to 5 from interfering in the construction work. It appears that there was no Presiding Officer in the Court and the matter did not proceed further. 3. Thereafter, respondents No. 1 to 5 filed a separate suit bearing No.244-1 of 2010, which was listed in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Court No.4, Shimla and in this suit they claimed that they were tenants in two rooms, bath room, etc. of a portion of Exchange Building and that without first evicting them in accordance with law their premises could not be reconstructed and basically their prayer was that they should not be dispossessed except in due process of law. In the second suit filed by respondents No. 1 to 5 the present petitioner filed an application under Section 10 CPC praying that the second suit be stayed since the matter in dispute in both the cases is identical. The learned trial Court has refused to pass an order staying the proceedings and therefore, the present petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There can be no manner of doubt that some of the issues which arise in both the suit are the same, though the reliefs may not be identical. Without going into the question as to whether Section 10 is applicable or not, I am of the 3 considered opinion that this is a case where both the suits should be heard and tried by the same Court. Therefore, Civil Suit No. 244-1 of 2010 which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Court No.4, Shimla is transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Court No.2, Shimla where the first suit is pending. Admittedly, now a Presiding Officer has been appointed in this Court and in fact respondents No. 1 to 5 have also filed their written statement in the first suit. 5. The learned trial Court shall ensure that both the suits are taken up together for hearing and the same date is fixed in both the cases. It is for the trial Court to decide whether both the suits are to be consolidated or not but even if they are not to be consolidated they should be heard and tried together so as to avoid any conflicting orders/judgement. The parties are directed to appear before the Civil Judge, Court No.2, Shimla on 19th October, 2011. The Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.4 is directed to send the records of the Civil Suit No.244-1 of 2010 through the learned District Judge to Court No.2, Shimla. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order by fax to both the Courts below. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. 20th September, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge.