' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--A suit filed by the respondent No,2 against the respondent No,1 on 1-11- 2004 for specific performance of an agreement to sell, dated 15-12-2003 is pending in the court of Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad, learned Civil Judge, Lahore, while a suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent No,1 on 17-5-2005 for specific performance of an agreement, dated 31-3-1999 is pending in the court of Mr. Sarfraz Ali, learned Civil Judge, Islamabad. In the suit filed by' the petitioner, somehow or the other the respondent No,2 who, till date is not a party to the suit filed by the petitioner (and similarly the petitioner is not a party to the suit filed by the respondent No,2) filed an application under section 151, C.P.C. Stating that the proceedings in the said suit be stayed because of pendency of his suit. The learned Civil Judge vide order dated 7-5-2007 proceeded to stay the said suit till the decision of the suit filed by the respondent No,2. This was purported to be done in exercise of powers under section 10, C.P.C.
2. The present civil revision was admitted to regular hearing and the said order being prima facie violative of section 10, C.P.C. Was suspended. I am told that thereafter the respondent No,2 again filed an application for rejection of the plaint in the said suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent No,
1. This application has been filed as the respondent No,1 has given a statement conceding the suit of the petitioner and it is being stated that a fraud and collusion is being resorted to.
3. Whereas learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that the suit could not have been stayed; the learned counsel for the respondent No,2 insists that notwithstanding the fact that his client is not a party yet he can intervene at will and get .The suit stayed or even the plaint rejected in the said suit.
4. I have called upon the learned counsel for respondent No,2 as to how a decree for specific performance passed with consent in the suit filed by the petitioner caused any prejudice. He says that he will have to get it set aside under section 12(2), C.P.C. To my mind, a decree for specific performance is of no use till such time that the transfer of title actually takes place by means of execution of a registered document or any other recognized mode of transfer after the compliance of the terms of the decree and the status of the plaintiff is then converted into that of a vendee.
' Section 27 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, permits enforcement of an agreement against a subsequent _vendee also subject to the determination of the question of bona fide purchase. The learned counsel for respondent No,2 then insists that both the suits be brought to the same court and the court be directed to proceed and decide the same simultaneously.
5. In the above noted circumstances when the parties are adamant to intervene into each other's suit, I find that it will be appropriate that both the suits be consolidated and decided together in accordance with law. The respective plaintiffs to be impleaded as defendants in each of the said suits. So far as the impugned order is concerned, needless to state that the condition precedent for passing of an order in terms of section 10, C.P.0 does not exist and the order is without lawful authority. The civil revision accordingly is allowed. The parties are directed to appear in the court of learned District Judge, Lahore, on 24-10-2007. The files of both the suits shall be requisitioned and the learned District Judge will pass an order for consolidation. He shall also direct as to in which of the two suits, the proceedings are to be conducted and thereafter he will send both the files to a learned Civil Judge for further proceedings and decision in accordance with law of the consolidated suits. No order as to. Costs.
6. A copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to the learned District Judge, Lahore.