IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2267 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.11.2009 Gurdev Singh and others .....Petitioners versus Kuldeep Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) In this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction for consolidation of the civil and criminal cases mentioned at Sr.No.A to D in the head note of the revision petition. It is stated that the above mentioned cases at Sr.Nos.A to D are between the same parties, namely, the petitioners and the private respondents and the same deserve to be consolidated to avoid inconsistent on contradictory judgments. C.R. No.2267 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Notice of motion was issued and as per the order dated 16.11.2009, service is complete. However, no one appears on behalf of the respondents. I have heard counsel for the petitioners at some length and perused the material on record. It is apparent from the averments made in the petition that (i) Civil Suit No.25 dated 2.1.2003, titled as Gurdev Singh versus Gurdip Kaur and others; (ii) Civil Suit No.200 of 10.5.2003, titled as Kuldeep Kaur and others versus Gurdev Singh, and (iii) Civil Suit No.386 of 18.7.2003, titled as Charanjit Kaur versus Kuldeep Kaur and others, are pending in three different Courts at Moga. Similarly, Criminal Case No.93 of 23.5.2003, titled as State versus Gurdev Singh and others, mentioned at Sr.No.D, is also pending in the same Court where the Civil Suit at Sr.No.A is pending. In these circumstances, it would be in the interest of both the parties if all the Civil Suits and the criminal case, though need not be consolidated, are entrusted to one Presiding Officer who is competent to try and decide these cases. It will save both the parties from multiple and repeated visits to different Courts and would also avoid inconsistency, if any, in the final outcome. Suffice it to observe that the Presiding Officer shall list all the cases on one date so as to cause minimum inconvenience to the parties. Since two, out of the four, cases are stated to be pending in one court, the remaining two civil suits can also be transferred and entrusted to the same Presiding Officer, subject to his jurisdictional competence. C.R. No.2267 of 2009 (O&M) 3 This revision petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Faridkot or the learned competent Court at Moga, to pass appropriate orders in this regard. Dasti. 30-11-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE