Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chander Parkash Soni vs Dr. R.S. Grewal And Others on 21 February, 2013
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Civil Revision No.143 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Revision No.143 of 2013
Date of Decision: 21.02.2013
Chander Parkash Soni ....Petitioner
Versus
Dr. R.S. Grewal and others ....Respondents
BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Abhishek Dhull, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 3.
*****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the Order dated 03.11.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the CPC for stay of proceedings of suit before the Civil Court has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in dispute in SLP as well as in the present suit is same and is still pending before Hon'ble the Apex Court. The application moved by the petitioner has been dismissed only on the ground that no interim Order was granted by Hon'ble the Apex Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the litigation is there between the respondents and the other persons who are claiming themselves to be the tenant, RSA No.850 of 2008 has been Civil Revision No.143 of 2013 2 dismissed despite of the fact that the SLP is pending.
Learned counsel also submits that operation of the judgment passed by this Court has not been stayed by Hon'ble the Apex Court.
I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned Order. Admittedly, the shop, in dispute, is subject matter of SLP as well as the suit filed against the present petitioner which are still pending. Although the parties to the suit are different but subject matter is same. In case, the proceedings in the present suit are continued, then the petitioner is going to be affected. The only apprehension shown by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in case, the respondents succeed before Hon'ble the Apex Court, then the present petitioner can be ousted and the ultimate loss would be to the petitioner.
Keeping in view the submissions of both the parties, it would be in the interest of justice, the proceedings in the suit may continue but the final order be not passed till the decision of SLP by Hon'ble the Apex Court.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) 21.02.2013 JUDGE gurpreet