Civil Revision No.3291 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3291 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.9.2011 Rajinder Kumar .....Petitioners Versus Neelam and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for respondent Nos.8 to 10. RespondentNos.1 to 3, 5 to 7, 14 & 15 exparte. Respondent Nos.11 and 12 died. M ehinder S ingh S ullar ,J. (Oral) The crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is, that Rajinder Kumar son of Hans Raj petitioner-plaintiff No.1, Jeevan Lata wife of late Surinder Kumar and others proforma respondent Nos.13 to 15/plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 (for brevity “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit against Neelam wife of Parvez Khan and others respondent- defendants No.1 to 12 (for short “the defendant”), for a decree of declaration to the effect that (i) sale deed No.4036 dated 13.2.1975, allegedly executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.4, (ii) sale deed No.2693 dated 4.1.1971, allegedly executed by plaintiff No.2 alongwith Smt.Raj Dulari in favour of defendant Nos.5 to 10, (iii) sale deed No.3775 dated 26.6.1976, allegedly executed by plaintiff No.3 in favour of defendant Nos.8 & 12 and (iv) sale deed No.1748 dated 16.6.1978, allegedly executed by plaintiff No.4 in favour of defendant Nos.8 to 10 are illegal, null, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and they are co-owners to the extent of 1/4th share each in the land in dispute. In this manner, they have filed Civil Revision No.3291 of 2010 -2- a single suit seeking a decree for declaration, challenging the indicated four sale deeds executed in between the years from 1971 to 1978. 2. The contesting defendants moved an application (Annexure P1), rasing preliminary objections of, maintainability of single suit, challenging the four different sale deeds. The plaintiffs refuted their prayer, filed the reply (Annexure P2) and prayed for its dismissal. 3. The trial Court allowed the application, sustained the objection of the contesting defendants and granted liberty to the plaintiffs to file the separate suit in respect of other sale deed, except the one, which, they choose to challenge in the present suit, vide order dated 15.2.2010 (Annexure P3), the operative part of which is (para 7) as under:- “A perusal of the afore-mentioned provision would show that several causes of action can be united in the same suit against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly. If any plaintiff having cause of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly then also causes of action can be joint in one suit. However, a perusal of the details of sale deeds from item no.1 to 9 would reveal that plaintiffs have challenged different sale deeds of different dates executed by different persons in favour of still different persons. There is no common cause of action as contemplated by Order II Rule 3. It is further evident that the objection has been raised even before the framing of issues and at the initial stage. Resultantly, the present application succeeds and is hereby allowed. However, it is made clear that the plaintiffs would be at liberty to file separate suit in respect of other sale deed except the one which they choose to challenge in the present suit.” 4. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff No.1 preferred the instant revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present revision petition in this respect. Civil Revision No.3291 of 2010 -3- 6. What is not disputed here is that the plaintiffs have jointly challenged altogether different four sale deeds, executed during the period from 1971 to 1978, with respect to different subject matters of individual sale deed in a single suit. The mere fact that all the defendants are of the same family, ipso facto, is not a valid ground for non-joining of different causes of action. That means, the plaintiffs have entirely different and independent causes of action. The sale deeds are pertaining to different years and different respective subject matters executed by different persons. Thus, to me, there is no common cause of action, which can be joined in a single suit. 7. Therefore, to my mind, the trial court has recorded the cogent grounds and rightly allowed the application (Annexure P1), in this relevant connection. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order (Annexure P3). 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is dismissed as such. 20.9.2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE