Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Chander vs Bhim Singh And Others on 1 November, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C. R. No. 6432 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 6432 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : November 01, 2012
Ram Chander .... Petitioner
Vs.
Bhim Singh and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Surya Kant Gautam, Advocate
for the petitioner.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
C. M. No. 27192-C-II of 2012 :
Allowed as prayed for. Main Case :
In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiff Ram Chander has assailed order dated 31.08.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-1) filed by the plaintiff for consolidation of two suits, which have been instituted by him. One suit has been instituted C. R. No. 6432 of 2012 (O&M) 2 against the five respondents herein, whereas the other suit has been instituted against two of the said five respondents. Plaintiff-petitioner alleged in his application that in both the suits, the material issue to be decided is regarding written compromise, which has been controverted by the defendants, and therefore, both the suits are required to be consolidated.
Defendants, by filing reply (Annexure P-2), resisted the application. It was pleaded that nature of both the suits is different because one suit is for permanent injunction and the other suit is for recovery of money. It was also pleaded that plaintiff and his witnesss have given contradictory evidence in the two suits, and therefore, evidence adduced in one suit cannot be read in other suit. Various other pleas were also raised.
Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-3), has dismissed the application of plaintiff-petitioner, who has therefore filed this revision petition to challenge the aforesaid order.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since material issue in both the suits is regarding the written compromise set up by the plaintiff-petitioner, both the suits are required to be consolidated so as to avoid conflicting decisions.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention. The same is completely misconceived and meritless. Injunction suit was instituted on C. R. No. 6432 of 2012 (O&M) 3 30.04.2007 and recovery suit was instituted on 17.11.2008, but application (Annexure P-1) is dated 24.07.2012. The said application was thus moved 03 years 08 months after the filing of the second suit. If the plaintiff wanted consolidation of the two suits, he should have moved the application at the initial stage of the second suit and not after 03 years and 08 months of the filing of the second suit.
In the aforesaid context, it has to be noticed that the plaintiff has already led substantial evidence in both the suits separately. In view thereof also, it would not be desirable to consolidate the two suits at this belated stage. For this purpose, reference has also to be made to the plea of defendants in their reply (Annexure P-2) that there is contradictory evidence of the plaintiffs in the two suits, and therefore, evidence led in one suit cannot be read in the other suit.
As regards contention of counsel for the petitioner that without consolidation of the two suits, there may be conflicting decisions, if the plaintiff has any such apprehension, then he should get the second suit stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is the remedy provided to avoid such conflicting decisions.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by C. R. No. 6432 of 2012 (O&M) 4 this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.
November 01, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE