IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH Civil Rev. 1121 of 2009 Date of decision: 3.9.2009 Charanjit Singh Petitioner vs Dalbir Kaur and others Respondent Present Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate Mr. Arvind Mittal, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner being in actual physical possession of the property in dispute, regarding which plaintiff-respondent No.1 has filed the suit, is a necessary party, as such his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC should have been allowed. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner Charanjit Singh has already filed a suit for injunction against Dalbir Kaur plaintiff-respondent No.1 on the basis of oral agreement of sale. In view of the fact that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is not claiming any relief against the petitioner and that the petitioner has already approached the court of law to safe-guard his interest, the trial court seems to have rightly dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the petitioner, if any, in any other litigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the subject matter of the suit is the same in two different cases, a direction should be given for clubbing of both the cases. No direction can be given in this revision petition in that aspect. However, it will be open to any of the parties to file an application before the District Judge for transfer of the case. September 3 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE