C.R. No.7296 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7296 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 10.11.2010 Surinder Pal Singh .……Petitioner Versus Smt. Rupinder Pal Kaur and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Ms. Gaganpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.28457-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Main Case. Plaintiff-Surinder Pal Singh has instituted the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 19.07.2010 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar thereby dismissing petitioner's application Annexure P-8 for consolidation of three suits. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that all the three suits are between the same parties and relate to the same property and similar evidence is to be led and, therefore, to avoid multiplicity of evidence and conflicting decisions, the suits should be consolidated. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on various judgments namely: C.R. No.7296 of 2010 (O & M) -2- 1. M/s Chitivalasa Jute Mills versus M/s Jaypee Rewa Cement, 2004(2) J.T. 535 2. Shijo Antony versus Sebastian Joseph, 2009 (3) Civ.C.C.655 3. Parwati Bai versus Kriparam and others, 2010 (1) RCR (Civil) 378. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention and judgments, but find myself unable to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. If same substantial issues are involved in the three suits, then the subsequent two suits would be liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, if different issues are involved in the three suits, then no purpose would be served by consolidating the same. In addition to it, one suit filed by respondent No.1 relates to possession of the suit property by specific performance of agreement to sell whereas in another suit filed by the petitioner, sale deed executed by petitioner's mother has been challenged. Obviously, question to be decided in the said other suit would not be same or similar as the question to be decided in the suit for specific performance of the agreement. Evidence in the two suits would also be different. The third suit is a mere suit for permanent injunction instituted by the petitioner. The same would have no relevance after decision of the suit for the specific performance of the agreement. In view of the aforesaid, the three suits are not required to be consolidated and there is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial Court. Judgments relied on by counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the to the instant case. In addition to the aforesaid, it may be added that the C.R. No.7296 of 2010 (O & M) -3- petitioner moved application Annexure P-8 at a very belated stage. Respondent No.1 had filed her suit on or about 23.12.2003 and the petitioner had filed his two suits in the year 2005. However, application Annexure P-8 is dated 07.08.2009. There is no explanation for moving the said application after delay of so many years. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 10.11.2010. A. Kaundal