(1.) BY means of this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.3.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Court No. 4, Shimla rejecting the application of the Petitioner for staying the suit filed by Respondents No. 1 to 5.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the present Petitioner purchased a share in the property known as Exchange Building, The Mall, Shimla. According to the Petitioner he obtained sanction from the Municipal Corporation for construction of the building and started raising construction thereupon. Thereafter he filed Civil Suit No. 18 -1 of 2010, which was listed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 2, Shimla and in the said suit on 30th March, 2010 an ex parte ad -interim injunction was passed restraining the present Respondents No. 1 to 5 from interfering in the construction work. It appears that there was no Presiding Officer in the Court and the matter did not proceed further.
(3.) I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. There can be no manner of doubt that some of the issues which arise in both the suit are the same, though the reliefs may not be identical. Without going into the question as to whether Section 10 is applicable or not, I am of the considered opinion that this is a case where both the suits should be heard and tried by the same Court. Therefore, Civil Suit No. 244 -1 of 2010 which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Court No. 4, Shimla is transferred to the Court of Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Shimla where the first suit is pending. Admittedly, now a Presiding Officer has been appointed in this Court and in fact Respondents No. 1 to 5 have also filed their written statement in the first suit.