Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinay Bhushan Khanna vs Ramesh Chander Khanna And Others on 16 December, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CR No. 7723 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 7723 of 2013
Date of Decision: December 16, 2013
Vinay Bhushan Khanna
... Petitioner
Versus
Ramesh Chander Khanna and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral)
Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.10.2013 (Annexure P/3) passed by ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Section 151 CPC for staying the proceedings in Civil Suit No. 78 dated 04.04.2011 has been dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner had filed a suit for declaratory suit titled "Ramesh Chander Khanna and others vs. Vinay Bhushan Khanna and others" wherein the parties have disputed with regard to the share has already been dismissed Kumar Virender 2013.12.17 17:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR No. 7723 of 2013 2 and the appeal against the same is pending. The present suit filed by the petitioner is for mandatory injunction and finding in this suit will be based on outcome of appeal. Therefore, in the present suit, the petitioner moved an application alleging that the proceedings in the case should be stayed.
The trial Court came to the conclusion that both the suits are independent and there is no stay order received from appellate Court. Otherwise also, pendency of another suit is itself no ground for stay.
So far as contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that finding in the earlier suit will have effect on the present suit also is concerned, this cannot be determined at this stage. The rights of the parties have been determined by the competent courts and only appeal is pending till date. The suit for declaration has already been decided against the petitioner, therefore, no ground of stay is made out.
In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
Dismissed.
December 16, 2013 [ Paramjeet Singh ]
vkd Judge
Kumar Virender
2013.12.17 17:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document