IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 10.02.2025 Avinash Kumar ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Ajaib Singh ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. P.K.S.Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda, whereby the application of the petitioner for transfer/clubbing of two suits which are being heard by different courts to any competent court having jurisdiction, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 24.04.2015; and in the alternative recovery of Rs.40 lacs; with prayer for grant of permanent injunction against the defendant/respondent which suit is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bathinda. The petitioner has filed another suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the present respondent; Rajwinder Singh s/o the respondent; Lovemeet Singh minor son of Rajwinder Singh; and Charanjit Singh son of Gurtej Singh of Bathinda.

The said second suit is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bathinda. The petitioner then filed present application dated 30.10.2023 (Annexure P-2) before the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda seeking transfer of both the above said suits to any one competent court having jurisdiction. Vide the impugned order dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure P-1), the said application of the petitioner has been dismissed. Hence, present civil revision petition.

3. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside as both suits pertain to the same property, parties in both the suits are same; only difference is that the second suit is against 3 family members and one Charanjit Singh son of Gurtej Singh; and witnesses in both the cases are also the same. It is submitted that therefore, the suit ought to have been tried by the same court. It is submitted that for the convenience of the parties and to enable them to lead evidence in one go before the same court, the application of the petitioner should have been allowed. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

4. Heard.

5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure P- 1) reveals that the specific query was put to the learned counsel for the plaintiff before the learned trial court as to whether he was seeking consolidation of suits; and it was the clear reply of the learned counsel representing the plaintiff/petitioner that he was not seeking consolidation of the suits. It is further recorded in the impugned order that the learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned trial court had acknowledged that as per law both the suits are required to be tried and determined on the basis of individual evidence led by the parties in their respective suits; and it was only for the convenience of the parties that the transfer was being sought. It was in this background that the learned trial court correctly opined that as the petitioner has clearly not sought consolidation of the suits, therefore, each suit has to be determined on the basis of the pleadings and evidence led therein; and therefore, there was no ground made out for transfer. It was further observed by the learned trial court that both the matters are old matters and are target cases in the action plan matters and both the matters have been proceeded before their respective courts in a time bound manner. Keeping in view the above said facts, the application of the petitioner has been dismissed.

6. I find no error in the reasoning of the learned court below. It is also to be borne in mind that the two suits of the petitioner have been filed against different parties. As such the rights of the petitioner will have to be determined separat