Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 782, 853 and 921 to 924, all of 1994, as the question which arises for consideration therein is common. The petitioner has filed these petitions against the impugned orders whereby his petitions filed under Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, have been dismissed.

2. Short facts of the case are that petitioners father Harbans Lal filed a suit for rendition of accounts against Union of India and others on the allegations that a Muslim evacuee left behind a garden and Industrial establishment No. 2 at Gurdaspur on the partition of the country. There was no demarcation between the compounds of industrial establishment No, 2 and the garden. The garden was allotted to Smt. Balwant Kaur and Industrial establishment No. 2 was leased out in open auction to Harbans Lals son Sudarshan Kumar vide order dated October 9, 1964 Exhibit P1. Later on, allotment of the garden to Smt Balwant Kaur was cancelled by the Rehabilitation Department and Industrial establishment No. 2 being the evacuee property was transferred to Harbans Lal in lieu of compensation of the property left by him in Pakistan. Balwant Kaur filed a