SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J. - Islam-ud-Din tiled a suit for specific performance against Ali Akbar for enforcement of agreement dated 10. 12.1991. Regarding the land measuring 123 kanals, 4 marlas, situated in Chak No. 214, T.D.A., Teh. Mankira, District Bhakkar. It is claimed that the entire amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was paid y the plaintiff and possession was handed over to him by the said Ali Akbar.
In this suit Abdus Sattar made an application for being impleaded as party on the basis of the agreement dated 23,5.1992 executed by Ali Akbar in his favour. It was alleged by him that the suit filed by Islam-ud-Din against All Akbar was collusive in nature and was to defeat and frustrate his right. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 22.1.1996 has allowed him to be impleaded as party to the suit. This revision petition has been filed against the said order of the learned Trial Court dated 22.11.1996.
2. On 30.1.1996, notice was issued to the respondents and proceedings before the learned Trial Court were stayed. However, it was observed that the "respondents shall also come prepared on the point as to why the two suits should not be consolidated" (the other suit is subject- matter of C.R. No. 275/96.
3. During the course of hearing of the case the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that regarding the same land, two agreements are claimed to have been executed by Ali Akbar, one allegedly in favour of Islam-ud-Din and the other in favour of Abdus Sattar. He was of the view that the best course would be that both the suits, i.e. Suit No. 55/95, filed by Islam-ud-Din and the Suit No. 396/92, filed by Abdus Sattar, are consolidated and heard together to avoid any contradictory judgment. Learned counsel for the respondents, who had already notice on this point as per order of this Court dated 30.1.1996, submits that he does not oppose the consolidation of the two suits but to avoid the prolongation of the proceedings it should be directed that the same shall be decided expeditiously.
4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the course suggested by learned counsel for the parties is substantially fair that both the above said suits be consolidated, heard and decided together. The learned counsel for the parties have expressed their keen-ness that the suits should be decided within a period of three month.
5. In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioners does not press this petition which is disposed of in the above terms.