129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DECIDED ON: 11.02.2025 Bimla Rani and Another …..Petitioners Versus Ranjit Singh and Others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL.

Present: Mr. Namish Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Anmol Puri, Advocate and Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.10.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide which the application filed by the petitioners for consolidation of two civil suits, one filed by the petitioners (Annexure P-1) and the second filed by the respondents (Annexure P-2) was dismissed.

2. Mr. Anmol Puri, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the contesting respondents and has filed his power of attorney.

3. A suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants Ranjit Singh, Tejinder Singh @ Kittu and Harminder Pal Singh @ Babbu from interfering in the peaceful possession and construction being carried out by the petitioners-plaintiffs over property No.B-VIII-1103/1 measuring 230 Square Yards, situated at Sarai Bansidhar, Shoes Market, Ludhiana was filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs. Subsequently, another suit was filed by M/s Novena Hotel and three other persons namely Ranjit Singh, Tejinder Singh @ Kittu and Harminder Pal Singh @ Babbu against the petitioners and one Chetan Batra seeking a decree of mandatory injunction directing the petitioners herein and Chetan Batra to permanently close the opening Mark-A B into the private passage of the plaintiffs therein. A counter claim (Annexure P-3) was also filed by the petitioners herein.

4. During the pendency of the suits, an application for consolidation of both cases (Annexure P-4) was filed by the present petitioners on the ground that separate trials may lead to conflicting judgments. The said application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-5) and by way of the impugned order, the application was dismissed, leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application for consolidation of both cases. He submits that the parties and the property in both the cases is the same and, therefore, the suits should have been consolidated with a view to avoid conflicting judgments and also with a view to save the time of the Court. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘M/s Chitivalasa Jute Mills Vs. M/s Jaypee Rewa Cement’, 2004 (2) RCR (Civil) 108as also the judgment passed by this Court in the case of ‘Nand Kishore Vs. Ram Dev’, 2002 (4) RCR (Civil) 173.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. He has pointed out that parties to the suits are different, for, in the second suit (Annexure P-2), the first plaintiff is M/s Novena Hotel which is not a party in the previous suit and similarly, defendant No.3 in the second suit is Chetan Batra whereas he is not a party in the first suit. He further submits that the relief claimed in the first suit is of permanent injunction as regards property measuring 230 Square Yards whereas the relief claimed in the second suit is for mandatory injunction directing the defendants therein to close the opening Mark-A B into the private passage.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book including the site plans produced by learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of hearing.No doubt, a counter claim has also been preferred by the petitioners. However, the fact remains that the relief claimed in the first suit (Annexure P-1) is for permanent injunction;

“Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, attorneys, servants, employees, associates etc. f