IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (124 Date of Decision:16.03.2026 SATISH KUMAR … Petitioner Versus RANI DEVI AND OTHERS ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The petitioner has instituted the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.02.2026 (Annexure P-9) passed by the learned District Judge, Panchkula, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of the rent appeals titled as Satish Vs. Jatinder (RA/22/2019) (Annexure P- 1); Satish Kumar Vs. Harish Kumar (RA/13/2024) (Annexure P-2); Kuldeep Vs. Amrit Khanna & Others (RA/2/2025) (Annexure P-3); Gagan Vs. Nirmala (RA/11/2020) (Annexure P-4); Rani Vs. Kajal (RA/18/2019) (Annexure P-5); Prem Chand through LRs. Vs. Nirmala (CA/10/2025) (Annexure P-6); and Sonu Vs. Kuldeep (CA/11/2025) (Annexure P-7) to a single Court for consolidated adjudication, so as to obviate the possibility of conflicting orders or judgments, as the application for the same has been illegally and arbitrarily declined by the learned District Judge, Panchkula.

1.1. It is further prayed that, during the pendency of the present petition, the proceedings in the aforesaid matters pending before the learned Courts below may kindly be stayed, in the interest of justice and to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent adjudication.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that several litigations are pending between the parties and the subject matter involved in all the cases is substantially identical. It is contended that the property involved in the said litigations belongs to Jangli Ram (since deceased) and is situated in Khasra No. 2014, and the parties to the disputes are his legal heirs (‘LR’ for short). The details of such litigations have been placed on record (Annexures P-1 to P-7), which clearly reflect that the disputes arise out of the same property and involve substantially similar questions of fact and law.

2.1. It is further submitted that in order to avoid conflicting decisions and to facilitate proper adjudication, the petitioner moved an application dated 22.05.2025 before the learned District Judge, Panchkula seeking that the aforesaid matters be entrusted to one Court for adjudication. However, the learned Court below dismissed the said application vide order dated 18.02.2026 (Annexure P-9) on the ground that a civil appeal and rent appeals cannot be consolidated.

2.2. Learned counsel contends that the impugned order proceeds on a clear misapprehension of the relief sought by the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner had not sought consolidation of the proceedings, but had merely prayed that the matters be assigned to one Court so as to avoid the possibility of conflicting judgments in respect of the same property between the same parties.

2.3. It is thus submitted that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the prayer of the petitioner in its correct perspective and declined the application on an erroneous premise, resulting in miscarriage of justice. The impugned order, therefore, being legally unsustainable, deserves to be set aside in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the paper-book thoroughly.

4. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned District Judge has declined the prayer of the petitioner primarily on the ground that the proceedings sought to be transferred arise under different statutory frameworks, including civil appeals and rent appeals, and involve distinct causes of action and issues which require independent adjudication. The learned District Judge has further observed that each of the m