Punjab-Haryana High Court Krishna vs Smt. Santosh And Others on 2 September, 2013
CR No.5457 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.5457 of 2012
Date of Decision: 02.09.2013.
Smt. Santosh and others
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH 1) Whether reporters of the local papers 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? Present: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate,
for respondent no.1.
PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 11.09.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Hansi whereby application moved by the petitioner for consolidation of suit No.80-C dated 16.03.2011 with another suit No.464-C dated 24.12.2011, titled as ‘Smt. Santosh vs. Krishna, has been dismissed. It is the case of the petitioner that both the suits are required to CR No.5457 of 2012 2 be consolidated in order to avoid conflicting judgments on the same issues as majority of the parties are the same and one of the substantial issues with regard to inheritance to properties of Sh.Sudhan Ram also arises in both the suits, therefore, both the suits may be consolidated. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
So far as civil suit No.80-C of 2011 is concerned, when the case was fixed for arguments, the petitioner who happened to be defendant in suit, at that stage, moved application for framing additional issue as well as for consolidation of suits. The trial in civil suit No.80-C of 2011 is at the fag end and only arguments are to be advanced. Both the application have been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 11.09.2012 with the observation that the same have been moved by the petitioner with an intention to delay the proceedings. The another civil suit is at the stage of evidence of the parties and will take time for its disposal.
Keeping in view the fact that one of the issues in both the suits is same, this Court in view of law laid down in Ramji Gupta v. Gopi Krishan Agrawal (D) 2013 (2) RCR (Civil) 898 SC deems it fit and appropriate to exercise power under Section 151 CPC to direct that in order to avoid conflicting judgments, both the suits are decided by the same Presiding Officer in accordance with law provided he is not transferred from that station.
CR No.5457 of 2012 3 Since civil suit No.80-C of 2011 is stated to be at the stage of arguments, trial Court can decide the same. Disposed of.
2nd September, 2013