C.R.No.1178 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1178 of 2009. Decided on August 20, 2009. Haryana State Kho Kho Association. .. Petitioner VERSUS Parallel Haryana State Kho Kho Association & Ors. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.M.K.Sangwan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.P.Dhull, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order dated 13.06.2007, dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, filed by the petitioner in a suit filed by Haryana State Kho Kho Association through its General Secretary Shri Rajpal Kadian pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Kaithal, (Annexure P2). Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the . . . 1 C.R.No.1178 of 2009 petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and injunction against Rajpal Kadian and others, in the court of Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Rewari, inter alia, seeking a declaration that the petitioner-plaintiff Association Haryana State Kho Kho Association is a legally constituted Association as per the Constitution of the Association and that a parallel association is against the provisions of Constitution of Association and that it is only the plaintiff association which is entitled to function and arrange all the programmes as per its Constitution whereas the defendant has got no right or authority to act in the name of Haryana State Kho Kho Association. There is another suit filed by Haryana State Kho Kho Association through its General Secretary, Sh.Rajpal Kadian, in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Kaithal, seeking a decree for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from disallowing the teams of said Association in participating in the Senior National Kho Kho Championship (Men and Women) 2006, to be held in the State of Maharashtra. The association of Satpal has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, in the suit pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Kaithal,on the ground that the fact of pendency of a similar suit had been concealed, as such, Satpal should be permitted to be impleaded as a party in the case pending at Kaithal. By virtue of this petition, besides chllenging the order dated 28.08.2007, dismissing the above said application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, another prayer has been made for transfer of the case pending in Rewari to Kaithal or to transfer the case which is pending at Kaithal . . . 2 C.R.No.1178 of 2009 to Rewari. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents and gone though the circumstances in both the cases which are Annexures P-1 & P-2. The Kho Kho Association of which Satpal is General Secretary, has claimed a declaration pertaining to his Association besides the relief of injunction against eight defendants so far as the relief claimed by Kho Kho Association represented through General Secretary Sh.Rajpal Kadian, is concerned, copy of the same is Annexure P-2. It is a suit for limited relief pertaining to the National Kho Kho Championship, which was to be held in the year 2006, at Maharashtra. It is the Kho Kho Federation of India which has to consider the validity of a particular Kho Kho Association. Said Federation is respondent No.4 in a case filed at Rewari and is defendant No.1 in case filed at Kaithal, by the rival associations. No relief has been claimed by the Kho Kho Association represented by Shri Rajpal Kadyan, against the Kho Kho Association represented by Sh.Satpal at Kaithal. The said case (Annexure P-2) can be adjudicated upon fairly being contested by the main contestant i.e. Kho Kho Federation of India. No relief has been claimed againat the Kho Kho Association represented by General Secretarty, Sh.Sat Pal Singh, as such, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. The petition for that purpose is dismissed. I have also considered the contention of counsel for the petitioner for transfer of the cases. Since the cause of action and . . . 3 C.R.No.1178 of 2009 the reliefs claimed in both the cases are different and can be independently decided without any complication, the amalgamation or transfer of the cases to one Court instead of facilitating the adjudication would further complicate the issues. In view of this, no ground is made out for transfer of the cases to one Court at one place. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 20, 2009. rka . . . 4