IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4924 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 17th August, 2011 Jarnail Singh … Petitioner Versus Sikander Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. G.S. Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been filed aggrieved against the order dated 19th May, 2011 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 CPC for staying the suit (Civil Case No.32 dated 5th February, 2005) has been declined. The petitioner has set out a case that one Baljinder Singh had executed an agreement to sell on 18th May, 2004 for sale of 8 Kanals 0 Marla of land @ Rs.80,000/- per Bigha. It was pleaded in the suit that Rs.50,000/- were paid as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed before 26th August, 2004. On 27th May, 2004, Baljinder Singh executed the sale deed in favour of Sikander Singh and Tarlochan Singh. The petitioner filed a civil suit (Annexure P-2) for possession by way of specific performance and for setting aside the sale deed. It is stated that the suit is being tried by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna. During the pendency of the suit, purchaser of the land namely, Sikander Singh also filed a Civil Suit (Annexure P-3) for Civil Revision No.4924 of 2011 (O&M) declaration to the effect that the plaintiff-Sikander Singh and defendant No.1-Tarlochan Singh are owners in cultivating possession of the same land qua which the petitioner had filed a suit at Khanna. Mr.Punia states that the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana has committed a grave error by rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, vide impugned order (Annexure P-1) on the ground that the Khasra numbers of the land are different. Learned counsel has read the head-note of both the suits (Annexure P-2 and P-3) to contend that the Khasra numbers are same. Counsel further states that unnecessarily same evidence will be led in two courts and there is every apprehension that in the parallel proceedings, contradictory findings may be returned and thereby judicial embarrassment may be caused. To allay the apprehension of the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of by directing the District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana to assign both the suits (Annexure P-2 and P-3) to one and the same Court of competent jurisdiction. These shall be tried separately but simultaneously. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 17, 2011 rps 2