The petitioner sought consolidation of two suits regarding property left by Nazar Singh under conflicting wills. The High Court dismissed the transfer application, finding no illegality in the lower court's refusal to consolidate the suits due to the stage of proceedings and difference in subject matter.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Manoj Kumar #1# 2013.12.21 13:20I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
T. A No.763 of 2013 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
T. A No.763 of 2013 (O&M)
Ishar Kaur
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Lakhbir Singh and Anr.
....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. B.S. Saini, Advocate, Advocate for the petiutioner. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL)
Petitioner-Ishar Kaur in the present transfer application has impugned the order dated 28.11.2013 (P.4) whereby the learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib has refused to consolidate two suits. She further claims the transfer and consolidation of the same by this Court.
The dispute is regarding the property left behind by one Nazar Singh. Petitioner-Ishar Kaur claiming herself to be his wife and on the basis of a will dated 22.2.2006 executed by said Nazar Singh during his life time and before his death on 10.3.2006 claims to be the owner of the property left behind by him (Nazar Singh). One Bahadur Singh-respondent No.2 filed a suit for specific performance on 2.11.2007 against the petitioner-Ishar Kaur and four others, namely, Lakhbir Singh, Pritam Singh, Gian Kaur and Shinder kaur, children of one Chet Singh. Said Bahadur Singh claims that Nazar Singh during his life time had executed an agreement to sell dated 5.12.2003 on receipt of earnest money. The aforesaid children of Chet
#2#
T. A No.763 of 2013 (O&M)
Singh were impleaded as defendants since they also claim to be owners on the basis of a earlier will dated 11.2.1987 executed by their maternal uncle Nazar Singh in their favour. The proceedings of the said suit are at the stage of evidence of the defendant-petitioner Ishar Kaur. There is another suit filed on 15.6.2006 by the aforesaid Lakhbir Singh against Ishar Kaur regarding the title of entire land, including the suit land of the aforesaid suit for specific performance, left behind by the said Nazar Singh on the basis of the respective wills propounded by both the parties. In the said suit, the evidence of Ishar Kaur (defendant therein) has been closed by court order.
Petitioner-Ishar Kaur, who is defendant in both the aforesaid suits filed an application in October 2013 claiming consolidation of both the suits, which have been declined by the learned District Judge vide impugned order dated 28.11.2013 (P.4).
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the advance stage of both the aforesaid suits besides the subject matter being different, I find no perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge warranting interference by this Court.
Dismissed.
December 16, 2013 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Judge erred in refusing to consolidate two suits filed regarding the same property left by Nazar Singh.
Whether there is perversity or illegality in the refusal to consolidate suits at an advance stage of proceedings with different subjects.
Ishar Kaur
Lakhbir Singh and Anr.
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
