Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devi Dayal vs Joginder Singh And Another on 8 October, 2012
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 5977 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: October 08, 2012
Devi Dayal
.. Petitioner
Vs.
Joginder Singh and another
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J
This petition assails the order dated 21.9.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by the trial court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, under Section 24 of CPC, for transfer of the suit to the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Patiala.
Joginder Singh had allegedly executed an agreement to sell the land to the petitioner by way of an agreement dated 2.3.2003, about which the suit was filed on 6.6.2011. However, Joginder Singh allegedly entered into another agreement with Lal Singh on 27.7.2005, on the basis of which suit was filed by Lal Singh on 24.6.2006, which is now fixed for defendant's evidence, whereas, the suit filed by the petitioner is fixed for plaintiff's evidence. It is difficult to anticipate as to what led the petitioner to file the suit on the basis of the agreement dated 2.3.2003 on 6.6.2011. As such, mere filing of such suit cannot be a ground to consolidate two suits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered in case Prem Lala Nahata & another vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, 2007 (1) Recent Apex Judgments 588 wherein it was observed as under :-
"16. It cannot be disputed that the court has power to consolidate suits in appropriate cases. Consolidation is a process by which two or more causes or matters are by order of the Court combined or united and treated as one cause or matter. The main purpose of consolidation is therefore to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. The jurisdiction Civil Revision No. 5977 of 2012 (O&M) -2- to consolidate arises where there are two or more matters or causes pending in the court and it appears to the court that some common question of law or fact arises in both or all the suits or that the rights to relief claimed in the suits are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions; or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order consolidating the suits. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 37, paragraph 69). If there is power in the court to consolidate different suits on the basis that it should be desirable to make an order consolidating them or on the basis that some common questions of law or fact arise for decision in them, it cannot certainly be postulated that the trying of a suit defective for misjoinder of parties or causes of action is something that is barred by law. The power to consolidate recognised in the court obviously gives rise to the position that mere misjoinder of parties or causes of action is not something that creates an obstruction even at the threshold for the entertaining of the suit."
The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, there are two different agreements under challenge in both the suits; different issues and different parties and both the suits are at different status, therefore, both the suits cannot be clubbed.
However, the counsel states that in the second suit, he has already impleaded Lal Singh as party to the suit, therefore, Lal Singh would certainly be at liberty to contest the said suit by raising necessary objections with regard to the alleged agreement, but the suit filed by Lal Singh is mature enough to await verdict. The application appears to have been filed just to delay the adjudication of the suit which is almost mature and as such, it is not an appropriate case which may be covered by the judgment delivered in Prem Lala Nahata's case (supra).
Dismissed.
October 08, 2012 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge