Disposed¶24

Raj Kumar Tayal v. Nirmal Singh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jul 2025CR/1669/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court; CR-1669-2023 (O&M); Alka Sarin J.; Article 227 Constitution of India revision; Order 1 Rule 10 CPC impleadment application dismissed 03.03.2023; specific performance; competing agreements to sell dated 08.06.2015 and 22.06.2016; CS-662-2017 Daya Chand Vs. Nirmal Singh etc.; CS-189-2017 Raj Kumar Tayal etc. Vs. Nirmal Singh etc.; Civil Judge (Senior Division) Palwal; consolidation of suits; connected revision CR-2108-2023; petition disposed 08.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Consolidation of suits CS-189-2017 ('Raj Kumar Tayal etc. Vs. Nirmal Singh etc.') and CS-662-2017 ('Daya Chand Vs. Nirmal Singh'), both to be heard by the same Court in accordance with law; the revision petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. ¶24

Raj Kumar Tayal Vs Nirmal Singh and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who had already instituted suit CS-189-2017 over the same property on an earlier agreement to sell dated 08.06.2015, was entitled to be impleaded as a party in suit CS-662-2017 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the dismissal of his impleadment application dated 03.03.2023 being the impugned order challenged in this revision petition. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

In view of the consolidation direction, the present revision petition stands disposed of accordingly, and pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No express ruling was made on the merits of the petitioner's impleadment entitlement.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Both suits, CS-189-2017 titled 'Raj Kumar Tayal etc. Vs. Nirmal Singh etc.' and CS-662-2017 titled 'Daya Chand Vs. Nirmal Singh', shall be consolidated and heard by the same Court in accordance with law.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CR-1669-2023 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Alka Sarin, J. (Oral), decision dated 08.07.2025. Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Raj Kumar Tayal against the order dated 03.03.2023 dismissing his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment in suit CS-662-2017 ('Daya Chand Vs. Nirmal Singh etc.'), a specific-performance suit instituted by Daya Chand (respondent No.3) against Nirmal Singh and Sanjay Kumar (respondent Nos.1 and 2) on an agreement to sell dated 22.06.2016. The petitioner had already filed suit CS-189-2017 ('Raj Kumar Tayal etc. Vs. Nirmal Singh etc.') on an earlier agreement to sell dated 08.06.2015 executed by the same vendors, pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal; Daya Chand's mirror-image impleadment application in CS-189-2017 had also been dismissed, and CR-2108-2023 was preferred by him. Held: both suits shall be consolidated and heard by the same Court in accordance with law; the revision petition and pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. No express adjudication was made on the merits of the impleadment application.

¶1

212

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR-1669-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision : 08.07.2025

¶4

Raj Kumar Tayal ... Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Nirmal Singh & Ors ... Respondent(s)

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶8

Present : Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Malvika Singh Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. John Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶10

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

¶11

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 03.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been dismissed.

¶12

Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that respondent No.3 - Daya Chand - instituted a suit being CS-662-2017 tiled as “Daya Chand Vs. Nirmal Singh etc.” for specific performance against respondent Nos.1 and 2, namely, Smt. Nirmal Singh and Sanjay Kumar, on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 22.06.2016. The petitioner on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 08.06.2015 in his favour executed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, namely, Nirmal Singh and Sanjay Kumar, had already filed a civil suit being CS-1892017 titled as “Raj Kumar Tayal etc. Vs. Nirmal Singh etc.” which is

¶13

Yogesh Sharma 2025.07.09 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order. Chandigarh

¶14

-2-

¶15

CR-1669-2023 (O&M)

¶16

pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal. The petitioner herein moved an application in the civil suit being CS-6622017 for being impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC which application has been dismissed vide the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has filed the present application as qua the same property two agreements to sell were entered into by respondent Nos.1 and 2, namely, Nirmal Singh and Sanjay Kumar herein and that qua one agreement to sell dated 08.06.2015 the petitioner herein had already instituted a civil suit being CS-189-2017 titled as “Raj Kumar Tayal etc. Vs. Nirmal Singh etc.” and, hence, sought to get impleaded as a party in CS-662-2017. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that since both the suits are pending at District Courts, Palwal, the same may be consolidated and heard by the same Presiding Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the suit filed by the petitioner herein being CS-1892017 titled as “Raj Kumar Tayal etc. Vs. Nirmal Singh etc.” a similar application has been filed by respondent No.3 - Daya Chand - which has also been dismissed and CR-2108-2023 has been preferred by him.

¶18

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would contend that he would have no objection if both the suits are consolidated as he is also aggrieved by the dismissal of his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC qua which CR-2108-2023 has been preferred.

¶19

In view of the above, both the suits being CS-189-2017 titled as “Raj Kumar Tayal etc. Vs. Nirmal Singh etc.” and CS-662-2017 tiled as

¶20

Yogesh Sharma 2025.07.09 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order. Chandigarh

¶21

-3-

¶22

CR-1669-2023 (O&M)

¶23

“Daya Chand Vs. Nirmal Singh” shall be consolidated and heard by the same Court in accordance with law.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations, the present revision petition stands disposed off accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶25

08.07.2025 ( ALKA SARIN ) Yogesh Sharma JUDGE

¶26

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶27

Yogesh Sharma 2025.07.09 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgment/order. Chandigarh

Raj Kumar Tayal v. Nirmal Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Tayal v. Nirmal Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sawinder Singh Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company

Sawinder Singh Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company

Sawinder Singh Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company

Jasbir Grewal Andanr Vs Pritam Kaur Deceased through Lrs and Ors.

Daya Chand Vs Raj Kumar Tayal and Others

Karambir Vs Sh. Vinay Kumar, Irpa, Secretary Hssc