Allowed

Sohan Singh and Ors. v. Kuldip Singh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jan 2010CR/6941/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court in revision set aside the trial court's dismissal of an application to stay a civil suit. It held that since the acquittal judgment forming the basis of the suit was sub-judice due to an admitted criminal revision, the suit proceedings were stayed under Article 227.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; application to stay suit proceedings allowed; suit stayed till final decision of criminal revision.

Sohan Singh and Ors. Vs Kuldip Singh… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C.R. No.6941 of 2009

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.6941 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.01.2010

¶5

Sohan Singh and others

¶6

.……Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Kuldip Singh Bajwa and another ……Respondents

¶9

Coram:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.

¶10

Present: Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶12

None for proforma respondent No.2.

¶13

L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)

¶14

Defendant Nos.2 to 4 have approached this Court by way of instant civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 07.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot whereby application moved by the petitioners for staying the suit instituted by respondent No.1 Kuldip Singh Bajwa against petitioners and proforma respondent No.2, has been dismissed.

¶15

Respondent No.1 has filed suit for recovery of Rs.25,00,000/- as damages on account of malicious prosecution launched by the defendants vide FIR No.66 dated 20.07.1998 under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) registered at Police Station, Jaitu, in which plaintiff respondent No.1 was acquitted vide judgment dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by

¶16

C.R. No.6941 of 2009

¶17

-2-

¶18

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot.

¶19

Petitioners herein alleged in their application (Annexure P-8) that initially plaintiff-respondent No.1 was declared proclaimed offender and his co-accused, who faced trial, were acquitted vide judgment dated 13.03.2006 (Annexure P-2), but the complainant filed revision petition against the judgment of acquittal in this Court (High Court) which stands admitted vide order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure P-4). Plaintiff-respondent No.1 surrendered in the Court on 04.01.2007 and after trial, he was acquitted vide judgment dated 03.09.2007, but petitioner No.1 Sohan Singh complainant has filed revision petition against said judgment of acquittal as well and the said criminal revision also stands admitted vide order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure P-5) and, therefore, proceedings in the suit are liable to be stayed.

¶20

The application was resisted by plaintiff-respondent No.1 by filing reply (Annexure P-9) wherein factual position as averred in application (Annexure P-8) was admitted, but it was pleaded that proceedings in the suit have not been stayed by this Court in the criminal revision and, therefore, there is no merit in the application (Annexure P-8). Learned Trial Court dismissed application (Annexure P-8) moved by defendants No.2 to 4 (petitioners herein) vide impugned order (Annexure P-1). Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

¶22

Respondent No.1-plaintiff filed suit after his acquittal vide judgment dated 03.09.2007 (Annexure P-3). However, the said

¶23

-3-

¶24

C.R. No.6941 of 2009

¶25

judgment of acquittal has not attained finality because revision petition preferred against the same stands admitted by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure P-5) and is still pending. Consequently, proceedings in the suit based on the judgment of acquittal which has not yet attained finality cannot be allowed to continue.

¶26

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that pronouncement of final judgment only may be stayed and in the meanwhile evidence to be led by the parties may be recorded by the trial Court. However, this prayer also cannot be accepted because the judgment of acquittal on the basis of which the suit has been filed has not attained finality and, therefore, recording of evidence would also not be appropriate in the interest of justice.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 07.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial Court is set aside and application (Annexure P-8) moved by defendant Nos.2 to 4 is allowed and proceedings in the suit instituted by respondent No.1 against petitioners and proforma respondent No.2 are stayed till final decision of criminal revision No.2236 of 2007.

¶28

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶29

14.01.2010 A. Kaundal

Sohan Singh and Ors. v. Kuldip Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohan Singh and Ors. v. Kuldip Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devender Chaudhary Vs Dhanvir and Anr.

Suman Bansal Vs Dharam Singh Verma & Ors.

Amrik Singh Vs Harjit Singh

Uttam Singh Yadavand Anors Vs M/S Life Insuranbce Corp of India

Kanwar Singh Vs Bhagwan Singh and Another

Kanwar Kumar and Ors. Vs Ram Narain and Ors.