Regular Second Appeal No. 1347 of 2008 And 1 Regular Second Appeal No. 385 of 2009 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. 1. Regular Second Appeal No. 1347 of 2008 Arjun and Others …Appellants Versus Baldev …Respondent AND 2. Regular Second Appeal No. 385 of 2009 Baldev Raj …Appellant Versus Yog Raj and Others …Respondents Date of Decision: 13.9.2011 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants (In Regular Second Appeal No. 1347 of 2008) and for respondents No.4 to 6 (In Regular Second Appeal No. 385 of 2009). Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate for the respondent (In Regular Second Appeal No. 1347 of 2008) and for the appellant (In Regular Second Appeal No. 385 of 2009). Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for legal representatives of respondent No.3 (In Regular Second Appeal No. 385 of 2009). Regular Second Appeal No. 1347 of 2008 And 2 Regular Second Appeal No. 385 of 2009 Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. They are in agreement that both the appeals viz. Regular Second Appeal No.1347 of 2008 titled as “Arjun and Others v. Baldev Raj” and Regular Second Appeal No. 385 of 2009 titled as “Baldev Raj v. Yog Raj and Others” can be decided together as the demised property involved therein is one and the same and the litigation is also between the same parties. Briefly stated, Baldev Raj, plaintiff/respondent in Regular Second Appeal No. 1347 of 2008, filed a suit for possession over the land comprised in khasra No. 786/1, detail and description whereof have been given in paragraph No.1 of the plaint. It was alleged by him that he has share with his co-sharers, namely Yog Raj, Smt. Murti Devi and Kali Ram, in the disputed land and the present appellants/defendants, namely Arjun, Bhim and Radhey Sham were strangers to the title of the disputed property. Furthermore, they are having Bara in the southern side of the disputed property and both the properties adjoin each other and the defendants, to the annoyance of the plaintiff/respondent-Baldev Raj, had encroached upon a portion of the land comprised in khasra No. 786/1. The trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court, in his Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2006, has reversed the findings given by the trial Court on 31.3.2008 and decreed the suit by holding that the appellants/defendants have encroached upon the portion of the land comprised in khasra No. 786/1. Regular Second Appeal No. 385 of 2009 has been filed by Baldev Raj, plaintiff/respondent. He had instituted a suit against his co- Regular Second Appeal No. 1347 of 2008 And 3 Regular Second Appeal No. 385 of 2009 sharer Yog Raj, Smt. Murti Devi, Kali Ram as well as against Arjun, Bhim and Radhey Sham (who are respondents in Regular Second Appeal No. 1347 of 2008). This suit was filed for partition and possession of gair mumkin Bara measuring 9 marlas comprised in khasra No. 786/1, detail and description whereof have been given in the plaint. The trial Court had dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate had also dismissed the appeal viz. Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2007 and held respondents/defendants No.4 to 6 to be owners in possession of the suit property. Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that since Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2006 and Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2007 were decided by two different Presiding Officers qua the same property between the same parties, the contradictory findings have come on the record. They have further submitted that it would have been better if both the appeals were decided by one and the same Presiding Officer to avoid contradictory findings in the parallel proceedings. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the judgments rendered by the lower Appellate Courts in Regular Second Appeal No. 1347of 2008 and Regular Second Appeal No. 385 of 2009 are required to be set aside. Hence, both the appeals are accepted and the judgments rendered in Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2006 and Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2007 are set aside and by doing so, the matters are remitted back to the lower Appellate Court. The District Judge, Kaithal, is directed to assign Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2006 and Civil Appeal No. 53 of 2007 to one and the Regular Second Appeal No. 1347 of 2008 And 4 Regular Second Appeal No. 385 of 2009 same Court, who shall decide the same separately but simultaneously. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the lower Appellate Court on 17.10.2011. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 13, 2011 “DK”