Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6830 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: November 19, 2012 Smt.
Manjeet Kaur .Petitioner versus Om Parkash and others .Respondents Civil Revision No.6831 of 2012 (O&M) Balbir Singh .Petitioner versus Om Parkash and others .Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.N.Jindal Present: Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
A.N.Jindal, J This order shall dispose of two connected petition Nos.6830 and 6831 of 2012, having arisen out of the common order and involving similar question of law and facts.
However, for convenience, facts are being taken up from Civil Revision No.6830 of 2012.
The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 5.11.2012 (Annexure P/4) passed by the trial court.
There are three suits filed by the plaintiffs challenging the different sale deeds, to which they were not the party.
In the suit titled as Gurjiwan versus Om Parkash, already pending in the court, the trial court had ordered the plaintiff to deposit the court fee, against which civil revision No.952 of 2009 was filed in the High Court, which was admitted and is pending adjudication.
The trial court, on the basis of the said admitted revision petition, had passed the order dated 3.2.2010, in the connected two suits, which reads as under :- Civil Revision No.6830 of 2012 (O&M) & Civil Revision No.6831 of 2012 (O&M) -2- “Learned counsel for the plaintiff has made a statement recorded separately that along with this suit a suit titled Gurjiwan versus Om Parkash for challenging sale deed is pending and in that suit an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC dated 22.1.2009 was decided and the Court fee was ordered.
Revision of this Order is pending in the Hon'ble High Court and regarding Court fee proceedings are stayed.
Any Order would be passed in this revision petition, validity of this Order would be accepted by us in this case also.
In view of the statement of Ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff, application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed in this case is pending and not the proceedings are adjourned to 27.2.2010 for consideration on the injunction application.”
However, thereafter on the application filed by the defendant, the court appears to have reviewed the earlier order and had passed the order dated 5.11.2012, directing the plaintiff to pay the court fee in the other two suits, which is not under challenge before this Court.
When once the learned counsel for the respondent had made a statement that any order, which may be passed in the said revision petition, would be acceptable and applicable in the other two suits, then the question of passing afresh order directing the plaintiff to pay the court fee should not have been passed.
In the circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the order passed in the civil revision No.952 of 2009, pending in this court would be applicable to the other two suits as well as per the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent in the aforesaid suit.
This petition is disposed of without serving notice to the respondents with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter.
Still, if dissatisfied, the respondents may move to this court for recalling this order.
November 19, 2012 (A.N.Jindal) deepak Judge