Lala Hans Raj Memorial Education Society & ORS v. Vijay Aggarwal & ORS

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:01.12.2016 Lala Hans Raj Memorial Education Society ... Petitioner Vs.

Vijay Aggarwal and others ... Respondents CR No.8059 of 2016 Rajan Aggarwal ... Petitioner Vs.

Lala Hans Raj Memorial Education Society & others ... Respondents CR No.8060 of 2016 Rajan Aggarwal ... Petitioner Vs.

Sumit Goyal & others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:- Mr. N.K.Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.

AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral) This order of mine shall dispose of three revision petitions bearing Nos.8058, 8059 and 8060 of 2016.

The petitioner is aggrieved of the dismissal of the application seeking consolidation/clubbing of following three civil suits:- i) Civil suit No.4897 of 2013 titled as "Lala Hans Raj Memorial Education Society (Regd.) vs. Vijay Aggarwal and others";

{2} ii) Civil suit No.3269 of 2013 titled as "Sumit Goyal vs. Lala Hans Raj Memorial Education Society (Regd.)"and iii) Civil suit No.5541 of 2013 titled as "Lala Hans Raj Memorial Education Society (Regd.) vs. Rajan Aggarwal and others".

Mr. N.K.Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that declaration has been sought by the plaintiff - Lala Hans Raj Memorial Education Society (Regd.), in two suits and defendant in one suit, has power and competent to manage, run and Administrator of the institutions situated at Moga, namely, Lala Hans Raj Memorial College of Education Amritsar Bye Pass, Moga and Lala Hans Raj Memorial Convent School, Amritsar Bye Pass, Moga, therefore, the respondents herein have no concern. Though the suits are pending in the same Court but in order to avoid the conflict in decision, the application, aforementioned, was filed but the Court below has erroneously dismissed the same.

He further submits that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, in case, the matters are consolidated as the relief sought by the plaintiff and other by the defendants is identical. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and apprised the paper book and of the view that in one of the suits, i.e., in CR No.8058 of 2016, the defendants are four in number, in CR No.8059, there are more than 10 defendants including the Bank. One of the suit is at the plaintiff's evidence and other two are at initial stage, therefore, the same cannot be consolidated together.

{3} Court.

In view of the aforementioned observations, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned order, much less the same cannot be said to have been passed without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petitions stand dismissed. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE December 01, 2016 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No