Civil Revision No. 7346 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7346 of 2009 Date of decision : August 25, 2010 Jagjit Singh ....Petitioner versus Jasbir Singh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. MK Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. PL Singla, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant Jagjit Singh has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 4.11.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga, thereby ordering consolidation of two suits for trial together. Respondent Jasbir Singh has filed suit no. RT-850 against Jagjit Singh petitioner for permanent injunction relating to khasra no. 1307/1. Respondent and another have filed suit No. RT-849 of 2003 for declaration against the petitioner herein and 11 other persons relating to khasra nos. 1307, 1309, 1310, 1312. Both suits have been ordered to be consolidated by impugned order by trial court. Feeling aggrieved, the Civil Revision No. 7346 of 2009 -2- defendant has preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the injunction suit, plaintiff-respondent has admitted that defendant-petitioner has half share in the suit land of khasra no. 1307/1 but in the declaratory suit plaintiff is denying the ownership of the petitioner herein over the suit property and thus, by consolidation of the suits, the plaintiff-respondent wants to withdraw the admission made in the injunction suit. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that plaintiff and defendant of the injunction suit are both party to the declaratory suit in addition to other persons and suit land of injunction suit is also involved in the declaratory suit in addition to other land and therefore, both the suits have been rightly consolidated to avoid conflicting decisions. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent wants to withdraw the admission made in the injunction suit cannot be accepted because plaint of the injunction suit is not being amended to withdraw any admission. On the other hand, the defendant petitioner would be at liberty to take benefit if any of the said admission when both the suits are decided together. Mere consolidation of the two suits does not mean that admission if any made in the injunction suit by the plaintiff-respondent is being withdrawn. On the other hand, both parties of the injunction suit are also there in the declaratory suit in addition to other persons and suit land of the Civil Revision No. 7346 of 2009 -3- injunction suit is also involved in the declaratory suit in addition to other land. Scope of declaratory suit is, thus, wider and scope of the injunction suit is narrower. By consolidating the two suits, both the parties will avoid leading of evidence separately in both the cases and it would also avoid conflicting judgments if the same are tried separately. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that both the suits have been rightly ordered to be consolidated. There is no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 25, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'