IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6187 of 2009 Decided on : 18.01.2010 Narinder Singh & others ... Petitioners versus Shiv Dayal Singh & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. B.K.Bhullar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.S.Brar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms. Harjot Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for respondent No.5. Mr. M.K.Singla, Advocate for respondent No.6. Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate for respondent No.8. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against order dated 20.08.2009 declining the application for consolidating the three civil suits or transferring the same to one court. It is not disputed that apart from the present suit for specific performance, there is yet another suit for specific performance against the respondent in respect of the same property. Third suit is also a suit based on an agreement to sell the same property, which has been mortgaged. Various banks have CR No.6187 of 2009 -2- been impleaded as party because respondent No.1 has taken various amounts as loan from them. I have heard the counsel for the parties. There is no serious opposition in this regard. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 states that the main prejudice would be caused to him in case prayer for consolidation is allowed. In my opinion, even though this argument cannot be lightly dismissed yet no prejudice would be caused to any party, and rather the entire gamut of the dispute/s would be more effectively decided if all the three suits are directed to be tried by the same court. Consequently, order dated 20.08.2009 is set aside and it is directed that all the three suits be transferred to any one court and be decided together. January 18, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE