C.R No.3185 of 2006 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : January 30, 2008 1. C.R No.3185 of 2006 Som Nath & others vs Sri Mam Chand 2. C.R No.3459 of 2006 Som Nath & others vs Devi Chand & others 3. C.R No.33467 of 2006 Som Nath & others vs Deepak Kumar 4. C.R No.3503 of 2006 Som Nath & others vs Satpal 5. C.R No.3504 of 2006 Som Nath & others vs Surinder Kumar 6. C.R No.3505 of 2006 Som Nath & others vs Raj Kumar 7. C.R No.3506 of 2006 Som Nath & others vs Tarun Kumar 8. C.R No.3507 of 2006 Som Nath & others vs Sanjay Kumar & others 9. C.R No.3508 of 2006 Som Nath & others vs Om Parkash 10. C.R No.3509 of 2006 Som Nath & others vs Kehar Chand 11. C.R No.3510 of 2006 Som Nath & others vs Surinder 12. C.R No.3511 of 2006 Som Nath & others vs Alakhgir C.R No.3185 of 2006 ::2:: 13. C.R No.3512 of 2006 Som Nath & others vs Ranjit Singh 14. C.R No.3513 of 2006 Som Nath & others vs Kailash Chand 15. C.R No.3514 of 2006 Som Nath & others vs Ram Karan 16. C.R No.3515 of 2006 Som Nath & others vs Harish Kumar CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA *** Present : Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Rawal, Advocate for the respondent(s). *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** RAJIVE BHALLA,J (Oral) This order shall dispose of CR Nos.3185, 3459, 3467 and 3503 to 3515 of 2006, as the controversy involved therein is similar. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from C.R No.3185 of 2006. The petitioners impugn an order, dated 9.3.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, directing stay of the civil suit, filed by them, for recovery of possession, by way of ejectment etc. Counsel for the petitioners asserts that the respondent is the petitioners' tenant. The petitioner, after serving a notice, upon the tenant/respondent, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, filed a C.R No.3185 of 2006 ::3:: suit for possession. The respondent thereafter filed an inter pleader suit alleging therein that the petitioners had sold the tenanted premises to Sandeep Kumar and Pardeep Kumar, vide registered sale deeds, dated 6.5.2002 and 7.5.2002. The respondent, therefore, had attorned to the vendees and commenced payment of rent to them. The respondent thereafter filed an application for stay of the proceedings in the ejectment suit. The learned trial Court, vide the impugned order, accepted the application and adjourned the suit for ejectment sine die awaiting the outcome of the inter pleader suit. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed an application for dismissal of the inter pleader suit. The observations, made in the impugned order, would necessarily prejudice the outcome of the said application. The learned trial Court, therefore, should have awaited the outcome of the aforesaid application before proceeding to render an opinion with respect to the present controversy. It is also asserted that the learned trial Court should have ordered a simultaneous trial of the suits, as adjourning the suit for ejectment sine die has postponed its decision indefinitely. It is further submitted that as the controversy in the present suit, as also in the inter pleader suit, filed by the respondent, is similar, though certain issues may differ, the impugned order be set aside and the learned trial Court be directed to consolidate the suits or dispose them of by a common order. Counsel for the respondent, however, states that till the disposal of the inter pleader suit, the suit, subject matter of the present revision petition, cannot be decided. The inter pleader suit would determine the status of the petitioners, the validity of the sale deeds and the identity of the C.R No.3185 of 2006 ::4:: present owners/landlords. It is asserted that in case the learned trial Court proceeds to adjudicate the present suit without deciding the inter pleader suit, the respondent's ejectment would be assured, thereby rendering the inter pleader suit infructuous. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is not denied that property, subject matter of both suits, namely, the suit for possession, filed by the petitioners/landlords, as also the inter pleader suit, filed by the respondent/tenant, is the same. The petitioners assert their rights, as landlords/owners, whereas the respondent- tenant alleges that the landlords have sold the tenanted premises to Sandeep Kumar and Pardeep Kumar, vide registered sale deeds. It is not denied that issues with respect to the validity of sale deeds, the identity of property subject matter of the sale deeds, the maintainability of the inter pleader suit, and the rights of the parties, would necessarily have to be adjudicated in these suits. Consequently, I am of the considered opinion that before proceeding to adjourn the ejectment suit sine die, the learned trial Court, should have, considered the entirety of the dispute and awaited the outcome of the application filed by the petitioners for dismissal of the inter pleader suit or directed a simultaneous trial of both suits. The learned trial Court failed to consider the petitioners' predicament that by adjourning the suit for ejectment sine die, adjudication thereof was indefinitely postponed. In these circumstances, the just course was to direct both suits to be tried by one Court by fixing them for evidence, arguments and pronouncement of orders on the same day. The learned trial Court, therefore, committed an error in adjourning the suit for ejectment sine die. C.R No.3185 of 2006 ::5:: In view of what has been stated herein above, the revision petition is allowed, and the order, dated 9.3.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, is set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 25.2.2008. Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioners to file an application, before the learned trial Court, to fix both the suits for hearing on one date, to be tried and decided on the same day, and by the same Court. If such an application is filed, and as submitted by counsel for the respondent, he would not oppose the said request, it shall be decided within a week. In C.R Nos. 3467, 3506 and 3511 of 2006, liberty is granted to the respondent-tenants therein to place, before the learned trial Court, a fact, pleaded before this Court, that they have vacated the demised premises. In order to balance equities between the parties, the respondent (s)/tenant(s) are directed to furnish adequate tangible security/surety for the rent, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, allegedly due from 1.4.2002 to 31.12.2007. The security/surety, so furnished by the respondents, shall be accepted, after notice to the petitioners. From January 2008 onwards, the respondents shall deposit monthly rent by the 7th of every month, before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court would be at liberty to place the amount of rent so deposited in a Fixed Deposit. The respondents would also furnish an undertaking that in case the petitioners' suit succeeds, they would have no objection, if the amount deposited towards rent, is released to the petitioners at the time, the suit is decreed. C.R No.3185 of 2006 ::6:: The learned trial Court shall make every endeavour to decide both the suits expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the next date of hearing. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) January 30, 2008. JUDGE `kk' C.R No.3185 of 2006 ::7::