Civil Revision No.7707 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7707 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.11.2010 Paramjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus Rameshwar Dass and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 31.7.2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri, whereby application moved by the petitioner to consolidate suit No.178 filed by the petitioner with suit No.33 filed by the opposite party, was dismissed. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff/petitioner filed first suit i.e. civil suit No.178/3.5.07 seeking relief for specific performance of contract pertaining to land measuring 23 kanals comprised in khewat/khatauni No.332 khasra No.49 as described in the heading of the plaint. Another suit was filed by Rameshwar Dass, one of the defendants in the earlier suit, challenging the sale deed dated Civil Revision No.7707 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 24.8.2006 regarding land measuring 37 kanals 10 marlas, Southern side although comprised in khewat No.332, khatauni No.471 and khasra No.49. In the opinion of this Court, land/subject-matter involved in both the suits is different, hence subsequently instituted suit is not liable to be stayed under Section 10 CPC. If Section 10 CPC has no application then suits cannot be directed to be consolidated. Ordinarily, direction for consolidation of suits is issued to decide both the suits together instead of staying the subsequent suit. However, in the opinion of this Court, principle governing the consolidation of the suits and staying the suit under Section 10 CPC is the same and identical. In view of this, there is no error in the impugned order. Dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge November 26, 2010 R.S.