Civil Revision No.730/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.730/2011 Date of decision:1.2.2011. Virender Singh .............Petitioner v Jalvir Singh and others ..............Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.Rakesh Nehra,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J(Oral). Defendant no.2/Virender Singh/petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 6.1.2011 whereby his application under Section 10 CPC for staying the present suit no.59/1 dated 29.10.2002 titled Jalvir Singh and others v. Jagbir Singh and others has been dismissed. It is stated that parties in the present suit and the prior suit bearing no.378/1997 titled Jagbir Singh and others v. Ranbir Singh and others are related to each other from a common ancestor. The dispute is with regard to sanctioning of mutation delineating the respective shares vide Mutation Nos.4179 to 4185 of Village Bhallout, dated 23.5.1996. Civil Revision No.730/2011 2 It is further stated that the petitioner herein had earlier filed civil suit bearing no.378/1997 for declaration challenging the aforesaid mutations with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Thereafter, in the year 2002 the other party basing their claim on the mutations filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present parties. It is not in dispute that in both the suits the parties have led evidence and both the suits are at the stage of rebuttal and arguments. However, at a belated stage, defendants on 12.2.2009 moved an application under Section 10 CPC praying for stay of subsequent suit dated 29.10.2002. The same has been declined. Learned counsel at the time of arguments submits that real issue between the parties in both the suits is virtually the same regarding the legality and validity of the Mutation Nos. 4179 to 4185 and therefore, prays that the two suits presently being decided by different courts may at least be ordered to be decided by one Court in order to avoid the possibility of contradictory judgments. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that though the prayer for staying the subsequent suit has been more or less frustrated by the conduct of the parties, however, the prayer that both the suits be decided by one Court deserves to be accepted since the issues to be decided are inter-related. Accordingly, in order to obviate the possibility of contradictory judgement, this petition is Civil Revision No.730/2011 3 disposed of with a direction to the learned District Judge, Rohtak to order the listing of both the suits, referred to above, before one Court so that both suits are decided by one Court. Disposed of. 1.2.2011. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge