Daya Chand v. Raj Kumar Tayal and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jul 2025CR/2108/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 revision petition; impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC dismissed; competing/duplicate agreements to sell dated 08.06.2015 and 22.06.2016 over the same property; specific performance suit CS-189-2017 (Raj Kumar Tayal etc. Vs. Nirmal Singh etc.); purchaser's suit CS-662-2017 (Daya Chand Vs. Nirmal Singh); cross-reference CR-1669-2023; consolidation of two civil suits pending at District Courts, Palwal; heard by same Court; Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; decided 08.07.2025; speaking judgment.

What did the court decide?

Direction that both suits CS-189-2017 and CS-662-2017 be consolidated and heard by the same Court in accordance with law; the revision petition and pending applications, if any, disposed of accordingly. ¶¶22

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner Daya Chand, who holds an agreement to sell dated 22.06.2016 from respondent Nos. 8 and 9 qua the same property, ought to have been impleaded in suit CS-189-2017 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, his impleadment application having been dismissed. +1 more

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

In view of the contentions and the absence of objection from counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 7, both the suits CS-189-2017 ('Raj Kumar Tayal etc. Vs. Nirmal Singh etc.') and CS-662-2017 ('Daya Chand Vs. Nirmal Singh') shall be consolidated and heard by the same Court in accordance with law.

¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Alka Sarin, J., Oral), CR-2108-2023 (O&M), decided 08.07.2025 — Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging dismissal (18.11.2022, Annexure P-8) of the petitioner's impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in specific-performance suit CS-189-2017 ('Raj Kumar Tayal etc. Vs. Nirmal Singh etc.') founded on an agreement to sell dated 08.06.2015; the petitioner held a later agreement to sell dated 22.06.2016 from respondent Nos. 8 and 9 (Nirmal Singh and Sanjay Kumar) qua the same property and had sued on it in CS-662-2017 ('Daya Chand Vs. Nirmal Singh'), pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal. Respondent No.1 Raj Kumar Tayal had made a similar impleadment application in CS-662-2017, likewise dismissed, and preferred CR-1669-2023. With counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 7 raising no objection to consolidation, the Court directed that both suits, pending at District Courts, Palwal, be consolidated and heard by the same Court in accordance with law; the revision petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly. Judgment marked Speaking.

¶1

212-2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CR-2108-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision : 08.07.2025

¶4

Daya Chand ... Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Raj Kumar Tayal & Ors ... Respondent(s)

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶8

Present : Mr. John Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Raghuvinder Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 7. Mr. Malvika Singh Advocate for respondent Nos.8 to 12.

¶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 18.11.2022 (Annexure P-8) whereby the 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 Nos. 1 to 7 instituted a suit being CS-189-2017 titled as “Raj Kumar Tayal etc. Vs. Nirmal Singh etc.” for specific performance against respondent Nos.8 to 12, on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 08.06.2015. The petitioner on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 22.06.2016 in his favour executed by respondent Nos.8 and 9, namely, Nirmal Singh and Sanjay Kumar, had also filed a civil suit being CS-662-2017 tiled as “Daya Chand Vs. Nirmal Singh etc.” which is pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal. The petitioner herein moved an application in the civil

¶13

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

¶14

CR-2108-2023 (O&M) -2-

¶15

suit being CS-189-2017 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.

¶16

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.8 and 9, namely, Nirmal Singh and Sanjay Kumar herein and that qua one agreement to sell dated 22.06.2016 the petitioner herein had instituted a civil suit being CS662-2017 titled as “Daya Chand Vs. Smt. Nirmal Singh etc.” and, hence, sought to get impleaded as a party in CS-189-2017. 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-662-2017 titled as “Daya Chand Vs. Smt. Nirmal Singh etc.”, similar application has been filed by respondent No.1 - Raj Kumar Tayal - which has also been dismissed and CR-1669-2023 has been preferred by him.

¶17

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7 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-1669-2023 has been preferred.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

-3-

¶21

CR-2108-2023 (O&M)

¶22

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

¶23

08.07.2025 ( ALKA SARIN ) Yogesh Sharma JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶24

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

Daya Chand v. Raj Kumar Tayal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Chand v. Raj Kumar Tayal 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.

Raj Kumar Tayal Vs Nirmal Singh and Others

Karambir Vs Sh. Vinay Kumar, Irpa, Secretary Hssc