MUSTAQ AHMED Vs. MOHD. RAMZAN

JUDGEMENT

(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 1 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 civil 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.) 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 Parkash's case (supra), this Court while dealing with a case 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 abovesaid judgment read as under :-