IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6382 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.2.2009 Balraj Singh ....Petitioner Versus Balbir Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. S.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naresh Kumar Manchanda, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Sandeep Punchi, Advocate for respondent no.3. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated September 29, 2008, passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner for consolidation of two suits has been dismissed with direction that both shall be tried before the same Court on the same date but separately. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated June 1, 2001, executed by Balbir Singh and Kashmir Singh sons of Sher Singh or land measuring 51 kanals 18 marlas comprised of Rect. No. 10 Killa No. 8/2/2 (4-0) Rect. No. 11 Killa No. 1(6-10) 2 (6-10) Rect. No. 10 killa No.7 Min Garb (4- 0) Rect. No. 10 Killa No. 4/2 (4-4) 5(6-18) 6 (8-8) 7 Min Shamla (4-0) 13/2 Min Janub (3-0) Rect. No. 11 Killa No.10 Min Shamal (4-0) situated at village Saide Ke Mohan, Tehsil Jallalabad District Ferozepure. The suit was filed on July 16, 2002. He further submitted that another suit was filed by respondent No.3 Nirmal Singh against Kashmir Singh son of Sher Singh for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated March 12, 2001 for land measuring 21 kanals 6 marlas comprised of Rect. No. 10 Killa No.5 described in Jamabandi as Killa No. 5/1 (2-0) 5/2 (4-18) (6-15) 6 (8-0) Rect. No. 11 Killa No. 1 (6-18) situated at village Saide Ke Mohan, Tehsil Jallalabad District Ferozepure. As one of the defendant in both the suits was same and also part of the property was also common an application was field before the learned Court below for clubbing both the suits. However, the same was rejected by learned Court below which may result in passing of contradictory orders. Reliance was placed upon C.R. No. 6382 of 2008 (O&M) -2- a judgment of this Court in Ved Parkash Vs. Amar Singh and another 1995 (2) RRR 86. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that interest of the parties has been properly protected by learned Court below while directing that trial of both the suits will proceed independently though on the same date before the same Court. This will save the parties from unnecessarily interfering into the proceedings in the suit filed by each other. In both the suits, plaintiffs' have their independent rights on the basis of agreement to sell as projected by them. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Learned Court below has rejected the application by opining that defendants in both the suits are not same and so is the suit property. However, a perusal of both the plaints show that one of the defendant namely Kashmir Singh son of Sher Singh is common in both the suits. Not only this even part of the suit property which was to be sold to petitioner Balraj Singh by Kashmir Singh and Nirmal Singh is also same. The suit filed by the petitioner is prior in time whereas subsequently respondent No.3 Nirmal Singh also filed a suit on the basis of agreement to sell allegedly executed by Kashmir Singh in his favour. Considering the aforesaid facts in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice and to avoid any contradictory judgment being passed in the suits, that the proceedings in both of them are clubbed together and decided. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by learned Court below is set aside and it is directed that both the aforesaid suits shall be clubbed and decided together. The petition is disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) 18.2.2009 JUDGE Reema