Civil Revision No. 8048 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 8048 of 2010 Date of decision : December 10, 2010 Ved Pal and others ....Appellants versus Hari Om and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioners L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 13.11.2010, Annexure P/1, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak thereby dismissing petitioners' application for consolidation of the instant suit and another suit titled Hari Om versus Ved Parkash and others. The petitioners alleged that parties in both the suits are same and suit property is also same and therefore, both the suits are required to be consolidated to avoid conflict judgments. Defendants resisted the application alleging that the instant suit is for permanent injunction whereas the other suit is for specific performance of the agreement to sell. It was also pleaded that in the instant suit there are three plaintiffs and four defendants whereas in the other suit Civil Revision No. 8048 of 2010 -2- there is only one plaintiff and two defendants. Ved Parkash one of the two defendants in the other suit is not even party to the instant suit in which the application has moved. It was also pleaded that one suit is for permanent injunction whereas other is for specific performance of agreement to sell. In the instant suit land involved is 160 kanals 5 marlas whereas in the other suit for specific performance of the agreement, land involved is 2 kanals 19 marlas only. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/1 dismissed the application for consolidation of the two suits. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that both the suits are between the same parties and relate to same suit land and therefore, both the suits are required to be consolidated. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on judgment of Calcutta High Court in Navneet Kumar Didwania versus Galaxy Manufacturing and Trading Company Private and others, 1999(4) ICC 289 and judgment of Bombay High Court in Shantilal Khushaldas & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. & another versus Raghuvir R. Painguinkar & Ors., 1995(1) L.J.R. 527. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but find no merit therein. As noticed hereinabove, parties in both the suits are not the same. There are three plaintiffs and four defendants in the instant suit but there is only one plaintiff and two defendants in the other suit. Even out of the two said defendants, one of them is not even party to the instant suit. Civil Revision No. 8048 of 2010 -3- Secondly the instant suit is for permanent injunction only whereas the other suit is for specific performance of the agreement to sell. Thirdly, the instant suit relates to 160 kanals 5 marlas land whereas the other suit relates to 2 kanals 19 marlas land only. Fourthly, both the suits were instituted in the year 2003 but the plaintiffs have sought consolidation of the two suits in the year 2010 i.e. after long delay of seven years. For all these reasons prayer of the petitioners for consolidation of the two suits cannot be accepted and has been rightly declined by the trial court. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In the case of Shantilal Khushaldas (supra) Bombay High Court did not order consolidation of the two suits and it was left to the trial court to consider the same. In the said case there were different suits pending in different courts between the same parties and therefore, it was considered desirable to transfer all the suits to one court. However, consolidation of the suits was not ordered by the High Court. In case of Navneet Kumar Didwania (supra) contesting parties in both the suits were same and both the suits involved essentially the same issues. So facts of the said case are completely different from the facts of the instant case. In the instant case, two suits cannot be consolidated for all the reasons recorded hereinbefore. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the instant revision which is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 10, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'