IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4340 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.7.2010 M/s S.S.P.Pvt.Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus Parminder Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The prayer made in the revision petition while impugning the order of the learned trial Court dated 29.4.2010 is that the application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure ought to have been allowed. The reason for such a plea is that the controversy in both the suits is essentially the same and pertained to the same transaction and therefore the suit which has been filed subsequently should have been stayed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned order as also the plaints Annexures P-3 and P-5. I am not inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioner for the simple reason that two different cause of actions have arisen to the petitioner and the respondents independently even though they may be having their genesis in the same transaction. The C.R.No.4340 of 2010 (O&M) -2- petitioner who supplied the machinery has the grievance that the amount has not been paid to him whereas the respondents have the grievance, that because of the fault of the petitioner and deficiency of service they suffered losses. It cannot, therefore, be said that there is convergence or overlapping or similarity of the controversy in both the suits. This can always be viewed from another logic that nothing prevented the respondent from filing a counter claim in the suit which has been filed by the petitioner, but since this course was not adopted and a suit was filed in which eventuality it would have been appropriate for the petitioner to get both the suits consolidated by getting the proceedings transferred from one place to another. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs the court that such an exercise has already been undertaken and a transfer application has already been filed. Thus, the instant petition is without any merit for the reason expressed above. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue his remedy for transfer of the proceedings from one court to another. Disposed of. 15.7.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss