JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure P-8), in terms whereof, the application of the petitioner for clubbing of the Civil Suit in issue with Civil Suit No.63 of 2021 has been rejected. 2. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and having perused the order in issue, this Court finds no perversity therein. 3. A perusal of the plaint of the Civil Suit, from which the present proceedings arise, demonstrates that one Krishani Devi had filed the Civil Suit against Kanta Devi seeking a declaration that the plaintiff was co-owner in join possession with proforma defendants of the suit land and that the Gift Deed alleged to have been executed by her in favour of defendant No.1 on 10.03.2016, which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jhandutta vide registration No.144 of 2017, was illegal, wrong, null and void and was a result of fraud and misrepresentation. 4. The petitioner herein, namely, Kuldeep Singh, was impleaded as proforma respondent No.2 in the Civil Suit. After the death of original plaintiff Krishani Devi, he has been substituted as the plaintiff in his capacity as the son of Krishani Devi. In the said Civil Suit, the present petitioner filed an application for clubbing of the present suit with the other Civil Suit titled Krishani Devi Versus Kanta Devi, on the ground that in both the cases, Will dated 18.07.2017 of late Smt. Krishani Devi was in issue and the parties were yet to lead evidence and as common question of law was involved and the parties were also common including the suit land, therefore, if separate evidence is led in both the cases, it will result in contradictory findings. 5. This application has been rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 12.09.2025, by inter alia holding that there was no similarity in the cases as one case was related to a Will executed by a party, whereas the other case was relating to a Gift Deed. 6. Learned Trial Court also held that clubbing of the cases would cause inconvenience not only to the parties, but to the Court also. Learned Trial Court also took note of the fact that the case was quite old and on these findings it rejected the application. 6. Learned Trial Court also held that clubbing of the cases would cause inconvenience not only to the parties, but to the Court also. Learned Trial Court also took note of the fact that the case was quite old and on these findings it rejected the application. Learned Trial Court also took note of the fact that the case was being listed for recording the evidence of the plaintiff and sufficient opportunity stood granted, but the plaintiff was coming up with one application or the other on each date of hearing which was further causing delay in the adjudication of the case. 7. This Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Trial Court calls for no interference. It is a matter of record that the Civil Suit subject matter of the present proceedings is a suit filed for declaration that the Gift Deed executed by original plaintiff Krishani Devi in favour of Kanta Devi is a result of fraud and misrepresentation. On the other hand, other Civil Suit which has been filed against the present petitioner by Tarsem Singh, copy of which plaint is also on record, demonstrates that the said Civil Suit has been filed by Tarsem Singh against Kuldeep Singh, seeking  a  declaration  that  the  plaintiff  and  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 late Krishani Devi. 8. 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. 9. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in the subsequent 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. 9. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in the subsequent 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 earlier suit, the petitioner is plaintiff therein now in his capacity as the legal heir of Krishani Devi and he has just entered into the footsteps of Krishani Devi. In the said suit, the issue is with regard to the veracity of the Gift Deed executed by Krishani Devi in favour of one Kanta Devi. In the other Civil Suit it is a dispute 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. 10. 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 dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.