Point of Law : Code of Civil Procedure enjoins various provisions only for the purpose of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and for adjudicating of related disputes in the same proceedings, the parties cannot be driven to different Courts or to institute different proceedings touching on different facets of the same major issue.

ORDER :

1. Since in both the above captioned petitions, challenge has been laid to order dated 5.10.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in CS No. 103-1 of 2011/10 and CS No. 99-10 of 2007, titled Shri Aswani Sood v. Mohini Devi and parties are the same, both the cases were beard together and are being disposed of vide common judgment.

2. For having bird’s eye view, certain undisputed facts as emerge from the record are that petitioner-plaintiff in both the cases (herein after referred to as “the plaintiff” ) filed two civil suits bearing CS No. 103-1 of 2011/10 and CS No. 99-10 of 2007, titled Shri Aswani Sood v. Mohini Devi, for specific performance of the agreement (Ext.PW12/A) and permanent perpetual prohibitory injunction, restraining the original defendant No. 1-Smt. Mohini Sood, from claiming any right, title or interest in the suit property in terms of the agreement proved on record Ext.PW7/A, whereby original defendant No. 1-Smt. Mohini Sood had agreed to transfer the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs. Since original defendant No. 1-Smt. Mohini Sood expired during the pendency of the suits detailed herein above, plaintiff filed applications (Annexure P-5 in both the suits) under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC in both the suits, praying therein for bringing on record the LRS of aforesaid deceased defendant, but before same could be decided, person namely Sanjay Sood, who was defendant No. 2 in both the suits also filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, praying therein for his substitution in place of original defendant No. 1-Smt. Mohini Sood on the strength of will allegedly executed by defendant No. 1 Mohini Sood, bequeathing her entire property in his favour. In the applications filed by the plaintiff, he claimed that defendant Mohini Devi died intestate on 2.2.2017, leaving behind her husband Sh. Prem Chand Sood, Son Shri Ashwani Sood, two daughters namely Smt. Lalita and Babita and Sanjay Sood-defendant No. 2. Aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff came to be resisted on behalf of defendant No. 2 Sanjay Sood, who alleged that he is the sole LR of the deceased original defendant No. 1-Smt. Mohini Sood as she has bequeathed her entire property in his favour by way of a registered will. Simultaneously, similar plea also came to be taken by him in an application filed by him under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, seeking therein his substitution in place of original defendant No. 1-Smt. Mohini Sood. Learned trial Court having clubbed both the applications decided the same vide common order dated 5.10.2019 (Annexure P-7), whereby applications having been filed by the plaintiffs for bringing on record the LRs as named herein above in place of deceased defendant Mohini Sood, came to be dismissed and application having been filed by defendant No. 2 Sanjay Sood, praying therein for his substitution in place of original defendant No. 1-Smt. Mohini Sood came to be allowed.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid order dated 5.10.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in applications detailed herein above, plaintiff has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid order and thereafter allow the applications filed by him for bringing on record the LRs of the deceased original defendant No. 1-Smt. Mohini Sood as detailed herein above.

4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 1 (b) and 1(c), whereas Mr. Abhishek Sood, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1(a) Sh. Prem Chand Sood, who happens to be father of defendant No. 2 Sanjay Sood, whose prayer for substitution in place of original defendant No. 1-Smt. Mohini Sood has been rejected.

5. Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff, whil