Navin Pal Kaur vs Raja Ram and Another

G.S. Singhvi, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated 26.8.1995 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur, rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, but at the same time directing the consolidation of Suit No. 294 of 1994 Raja Ram v. Gopal Singh and Civil Suit No. 256 of 1992 Naveen Pal Kumar v. Gopal Singh.

The Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit against Gopal Singh on 27.10.1992 for specific performance of agreement to sell, which is said to have been executed by Respondent Gopal Singh in her favour for sale of 1 Kanal and 18 marlas of land. Gopal Singh contested the suit and filed written statement on 28.7.1993. Issues were framed on 13.8.1993. Two witnesses of the Plaintiff were examined on 21.10.1993 and they were cross-examined on 13.12.1993. During the pendency of proceedings, the Plaintiff filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC for impleadment of Raja Ram as Defendant. This application came to be accepted by the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge vide order dated 20th September, 1994. There after an additional issue came to be framed by the trial Court on 6.1.1995.

Raja Ram instituted a civil suit against Gopal Singh on 4.12.1993 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.2.1992, which Gopal Singh is said to have entered into with Raja Ram for sale of 1 Kanal and 19 Marias of land. In that suit also, Gopal Singh filed written statement before the trial Court on 17.2.1994 and after framing the issues two witnesses of the Plaintiff were examined on 8.4.1994. On 21.10.1994, Petitioner Navin Pal Kaur made an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for her impleadment as a Defendant. Respondent Raja Ram contested the application filed by the Petitioner and after hearing the parties the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order and dismissed the application filed by Smt. Navin Pal Kaur on the ground the she is not a necessary party in the suit for specific performance filed by Raja Ram against Gopal Singh. However, at the same time, the trial Court ordered that Civil Suit No. 294 of 1994, Raja Ram v. Gopal Singh be consolidated with Civil Suit No. 256 of 1992, Naveen Pal Kumar v. Gopal Singh and also that the evidence to be recorded in Civil Suit No. 256 of 1992 would be read in both the suits.

After having given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not call for interference by this Court. By directing that two suits relating to the same property be consolidated and the evidence to be recorded in the suit filed by the Petitioner shall be read in both the suits, the learned trial Court has obviated the possibility of inconsistent decrees. This is precisely what a learned single Judge of this Court had directed in Ved Parkash v. Amar Singh 1995 PLJ 12. Therefore, even if it is possible to take different view than the one taken by the trial Court on the scope of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I do not find any reason to set aside the impugned order because no substantial failure of justice is going to be occasioned if that order remains intact.. The Petitioner as well as the Respondent will have full opportunity to put forward their respective claims in regard to the disputed property and there is no reason to presume that the Court will not examine the matter carefully before making a final adjudication.

For the reason mentioned above, the revision petition is dismissed.