2025:HHC:35464 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.597 of 2025 Decided on: 09.10.2025 Shri Kuldeep Singh … Petitioner Versus Shri Tarsem Singh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate. For the respondents : No notice issued. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order passed by learned Trial Court, dated 12.09.2025, in terms whereof, the application filed by the present petitioner for clubbing of the Civil Suit in hand, titled Tarsem Singh Versus Kuldeep Singh with the other Civil Suit, titled Krishni Devi Versus Kanta Devi has dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 2. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and have also carefully gone through the impugned order. 3. The impugned order reads as under:- “This order shall dispose off an application filed by the applicant/defendant for clubbing the present case ie. Tarsem Singh versus Kuldeep Singh with case titled as 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:35464 Krishani Devi versus Kanta Devi. It is averred that the other case titled as Krishani Devi versus Kanta Devi is also pending before this Court. In both the cases, the registered Will dated 18-07-2017 of Late Smt. Krishani Devi is in issue and both the parties are yet to lead evidence in both cases. A common question of law is involved in both the cases as well as the suit land and the parties are common in both the cases and if separate evidence is lead in both the cases, then it may result in contradictory finding in both the cases. Moreover, it will also waste the valuable time of the Court. With these submissions, it has been prayed that the application be allowed. 2. Reply not filed nor intended to be filed. 3. I have heard Id Counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file. 4. Though the reply has not been filed to the present application by the respondents, but perusal of both the cases le "Tarsem Singh versus Kuldeep Singh" and "Krishani Devi versus Kanta Devi" it appeared that one is old and targetted and sufficient opportunities has been provided and no further delay can be caused to it by clubbing it with another file. Moreover the matter in issues is different in both the cases. In the present case it is related to the will executed between the parties whereas in another suit it talks about the gift deed. Clubbing of the cases will cause que inconvenience not only to the parties but also to the court. Hence, in view of above discussions, 3 2025:HHC:35464 the present application fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The application stands disposed off After due completion be tagged with main case file. 5 Let, the case be listed for cross examination of Pws at self responsibility on 10.10.2025.” 4. Having perused the impugned order and having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the plaints in the two Civil Suits, this Court does not finds any perversity in the impugned order. 5. It is a matter of record that in the Civil Suit titled Krishani Devi Versus Kanta Devi, Krishni Devi, the mother of the present petitioner sought a declaration that a Gift Deed executed by her in favour of Kanta Devi was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. On the other hand, the Civil Suit filed by Tarsem Singh against the present petitioner, application dismissed wherein has resulted in the filing of the present proceedings, has been filed by Tarsem Singh against Kuldeep Singh seeking a declaration that the plaintiff and the defendants are successors/legal heirs of late Smt.Krishani Devi and that the plaintiff and defendants were owners and had succeeded all rights, title and interest in equal shares of late Krishani Devi, which vested in her at the time of her death etc. as well as for permanent injunction that defendant Kuldeep Singh should not interfere in the share of the plaintiff in the property of 4 2025:HHC:35464 late Krishani Devi. 6. Thus, obviously there is no commonality in the issues in the Civil Suit filed by late Smt. Krishani Devi vis-a-vis the suit filed by Tarsem Singh. Incidently, in the Civil Suit filed by Krishani Devi, Tarsem Singh was also proforma defendant alongwith the present petitioner Kuldeep Singh, who happen to be the real brothers. 7. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in this suit the petitioner has raised the plea of a Will executed by Krishani Devi in his favour and that petitioner had taken this stand in the earlier Civil Suit also in his capacity as proforma defendant does not impresses this Court. In the Civil Suit in hand which is the subsequent suit, dispute is between two brothers wherein the plaintiff is seeking an injunction against the present petitioner not to interfere in the share of the plaintiff in any property of late Krishani Devi on the ground that they are equal successors to the property of Krishani Devi. 8. Therefore, in light of the fact that the cause of action in the earlier Civil Suit and the cause of action in the subsequent Civil Suit are totally different and alien to each other, the application stands rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court and as this Court does not finds any perversity therein, the present petition is 5 2025:HHC:35464 dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 09, 2025 (Rishi)