JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. – Since the subject matter of these three petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the same, hence with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, all the petitions are being decided by a following common judgment and order. 2. Heard Sri Piyush Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.S. Mehra, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in all these three petitions. 3. Petition No.8474 (MS) of 2016 has been filed with the prayer that an appropriate direction be issued for joint trial of Regular Suit No. 349 of 2011, Smt. Aneeta Bajpai & others v. Sukesh Chatuvedi & others, SCC Suit No. 30 of 2011, Rakeshwar Prasad Agarwal & others v. Ashok Narayan Bajpai & others and P.A. Case No. 33 of 2013, Rakeshwar Prasad Agarwal v. Ashok Narayan Bajpai & another. 4. The petition No. 7254 (R/C) of 2016 has been filed challenging the order dated 14.03.2016, passed in SCC Suit No. 30 of 2011 whereby the application for correction in the earlier order dated 29.04.2015, was rejected. 5. Petition No. 7257 (R/C) of 2016 has been filed challenging the order dated 14.03.2016, whereby the application moved by the petitioners to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness was rejected. 6. Sri Piyush Kuamr Agarwal as well as Sri P.S. Mehra, learned counsel representing the contesting parties in all these three matters do not dispute that since the subject matter of proceedings of the aforementioned cases is same, as such it would be in the fitness of things that joint trial of all these matters be ordered. 7. On the basis of the order passed by the District Judge on 12.05.2014, all the three aforementioned cases are currently pending disposal before the learned Additional Judge, Small Casues Court-II, Lucknow. 8. In view of the agreement between the learned counsel for the parties, it is, thus, directed that the trial of Regular Suit No. 349 of 2011, Smt. Aneeta Bajpai & others v. Sukesh Chatuvedi & others, SCC Suit No. 30 of 2011, Rakeshwar Prasad Agarwal& others v. Ashok Narayan Bajpai & others and P.A. Case No. 33 of 2013, Rakeshwar Prasad Agarwal v. Ashok Narayan Bajpai & another shall be jointly held by the court of Additional Judge, Small Causes Court-II, Lucknow where, at present, proceedings of all three cases are pending. 9. 9. At this juncture, Sri Piyush Kumar Agarwal has submitted that looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the case, Regular Suit No. 349 of 2011 should be ordered to be decided first amongst the three cases by the learned court below. The aforesaid prayer has been opposed by Sri P. S. Mehra, learned counsel representing the respondents. 10. The original landlord of the premises in question, which is a double storeyed house bearing No. 4, situate at Lokmanyaganj, Charbagh Sabji Mandi, Lucknow, was Narendra Nath Chaturvedi who is predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 5 to 8, namely Sukesh Chaturvedi, Ritesh Chaturvedi, Smt. Nidhi Chaturvedi and Smt. Prabhati Chaturvedi. Regular Suit No. 349 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer that the alleged sale deed dated 02.07.2010 said to have been executed by respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 be cancelled and a decree of specific performance be also passed directing the defendants in the suit to execute the sale deed in respect of the property in question in favour of the petitioners. Basis of the said prayer made in Regular Suit No. 349 of 2011 is a registered agreement to sell dated 10.03.2010 executed by Sukesh Chaturvedi in favour of the petitioners. 11. SCC Suit No. 30 of 2011 has been filed by Rakeshwar Prasad Agarwal, Anchal Agarwal and Naman Agarwal against the petitioners for recovery of rent and ejectment in respect of the same property which is subject matter of Regular Suit No. 349 of 2011. 12. In addition to the aforesaid two proceedings, a case under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has also been filed by the Rakeshwar Prasad Agarwal, Anchal Agarwal and Naman Agarwal against the petitioners praying therein that the property in question be released in favour of the applicants therein and the respondents therein be evicted. 13. 12. In addition to the aforesaid two proceedings, a case under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has also been filed by the Rakeshwar Prasad Agarwal, Anchal Agarwal and Naman Agarwal against the petitioners praying therein that the property in question be released in favour of the applicants therein and the respondents therein be evicted. 13. Sri P.S. Mehra, learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the prayer made by Sri Piyush Kumar Agarwal, has contended that late Narendra Nath Chaturvedi, the original owner and landlord of the house in question has five legal heirs, all of whom had executed the sale deed in favour of Rakeshwar Prasad Agarwal, Anchal Agarwal and Naman Agarwal, whereas agreement to sell dated 10.03.2010 is said to be executed only by one legal heir of the deceased-landlord i.e. by Sukesh Chaturvedi and hence, Rakeshwar Prasad Agarwal, Anchal Agarwal and Naman Agarwal are admittedly the landlords and, thus, the proceedings of all the three cases should be continued to be conducted simultaneously. 14. The question which falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether the proceedings of the Regular Suit No. 349 of 2011 should be treated to be the leading case and should discretion of this court be exercised in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the learned court below to decide the Regular Suit first out of the three proceedings. 15. The claim of the petitioners is based on a registered agreement to sell dated 10.03.2010 which is said to have been executed by Sukesh Chaturvedi in favour of the petitioners who are admittedly the tenants. The relief claimed in Regular Suit No. 349 of 2011 is that the decree of specific performance based on the said agreement to sale deed dated 10.03.2010 be passed. 16. The issue relating to landlord in P.A. Case No. 33 of 2013 and SCC Suit No. 30 of 2011 will have a significant bearing on the final outcome of these two cases. Thus, in my considered opinion, it would be appropriate, in the interest of justice and in the fitness of things that the proceedings of Regular Suit No. 349 of 2011 be concluded first i.e. before conclusion of the proceedings of other two cases. 17. Thus, in my considered opinion, it would be appropriate, in the interest of justice and in the fitness of things that the proceedings of Regular Suit No. 349 of 2011 be concluded first i.e. before conclusion of the proceedings of other two cases. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Piyush Kumar Agarwal has further stated that in case all the three cases are ordered for joint trial and direction is issued to first conclude the proceedings of Regular Suit No. 349 of 2011, the petition No. 7257 (R/C) of 2016 and petition No. 7254 (R/C) of 2016 will be rendered infructuous and will be redundant. He further stated that the orders which are under challenge in the aforesaid petitions have been challenged by him in Civil Revision Nos. 61 of 2016 and 62 of 2016. He further states that in case prayer made is granted, he will withdraw the proceedings of aforesaid two civil revisions and get it dismissed as not pressed. 18. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I feel it appropriate to order for joint trial of the proceedings of the aforesaid cases. Accordingly, a direction is issued that Regular Suit No. 349 of 2011, Smt. Aneeta Bajpai & others v. Sukesh Chatuvedi & others, SCC Suit No. 30 of 2011, Rakeshwar Prasad Agarwal & others v. Ashok Narayan Bajpai & others and P.A. Case No. 33 of 2013, Rakeshwar Prasad Agarwal v. Ashok Narayan Bajpai & another will be tried jointly. Since all the three matters, at present, are pending before the court of Additional Judge, Small Causes Court-II, Lucknow, the same shall be tried by the said court itself. It is further directed that the proceedings of Regular Suit No. 349 of 2011 shall be concluded first out of the proceedings of all these three cases. It is further directed that though the proceedings of Regular Suit No. 349 of 2011, as directed above, shall be concluded first, however, proceedings of all the three matters shall go on simultaneously. Proceedings of Regular Suit No. 349 of 2011 shall be expedited and concluded within a period of 12 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and proceedings of rest of the two cases shall also be concluded within a period of two months thereafter. 19. Writ Petition Nos. Proceedings of Regular Suit No. 349 of 2011 shall be expedited and concluded within a period of 12 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and proceedings of rest of the two cases shall also be concluded within a period of two months thereafter. 19. Writ Petition Nos. 7257(R/C) of 2016 and 7254 (R/C) of 2016 are rendered infructuous which stand dismissed as such. 20. The petitioners shall withdraw the Civil Revision Nos. 61 and 62 of 2016 pending before the revisional court. 21. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the three petitions are disposed of finally. 22. There will be no order as to costs.