Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 19 (PNJ)

Mustaq Ahmed v. Mohd. Ramzan

2005-01-06

AJAY K.MITTAL

body2005
Judgment Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. In this revision petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 28.9.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla whereby his application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as a party has been dismissed. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the revision petition are that Mohd. Anwar (hereinafter referred to as vendor) had entered into an agreement to sell dated 8.4.1996 with the petitioner. The vendor had received the entire sale consideration of Rs. 2,70,000/- but had failed to execute the sale-deed. On 25.8.1999, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No. 182 for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 8.4.1996. On 29.11.2000, the petitioner wrongly withdrew the suit. The application for restoration of the aforesaid suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 14.8.2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No.4906 of 2002 in this Court which was dismissed on 25.3.2003, but the petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Thereafter the petitioner filed suit No. 154 on 7.5.2003 and the same is pending in the Court of Mrs. Mandeep Pannu, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla. 3. The vendor further entered into an agreement to sell the suit property in favour of Mohd. Ramzan vide agreement to sell dated 30.6.1999. Mohd. Ramzan filed civil Suit No.209 on 15.6.2002 on the basis of agreement to sell dated 30.6.1999 for its specific performance which is also pending in the same Court. In this suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that he being a proper and necessary party, be impleaded as defendant in the said suit. The trial Court relying on a judgment of this Court in Ved Parkash v. Amar Singh and Anr., 1 1995 P.L.J. 12, rejected the application of the petitioner for being impleaded as a party to suit No. 209. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments confined his prayer for consolidation of both the suits and prayed that the same be ordered to be decided together. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments confined his prayer for consolidation of both the suits and prayed that the same be ordered to be decided together. In Ved Parkashs (supra), this Court while dealing with a where the applicant who sought to be impleaded as defendant on the basis of another agreement to sell in his favour and who was neither in possession of the land nor a party to the agreement to sell on the basis of which suit had been filed and further, no relief had been claimed against him, was held to be neither necessary nor a proper party. This Court, however, observed that in order to avoid contradictory decrees, the two suits filed should be consolidated and decided together. The observations of this Court made in para 6 in the above said judgment read as under:- "There is, however, a chance of two contradictory decree coming into being because of the two suits filed by the two alleged purchasers on the strength of independent agreement, to sell in their favour in respect of the same land. To avoid such a situation it is ordered that the two suits be consolidated and disposed of together. The parties shall furnish the particulars of their suit to the trial Court so that the two suits are consolidated and decided together." In view of the above, in order to avoid two contradictory decrees being passed in the two suits filed by two alleged purchases on the basis of different agreements to sell in their favour in respect of the same land, it is directed the civil Suit No. 154 dated 7.5.2003 (Mohd. Mustaq v. Mohd. Anwar) and Civil Suit No. 209 dated 15.6.2002 (Mohd. Ramzan v. Mohd. Anwar) pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Malerkotla shall be consolidated and disposed of together. Since the matter is pending for fairly a long time, the trial Court shall dispose of the suits expeditiously, preferably within one year. The revision petition is disposed of with the above directions and observations.