In a revision under Article 226, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed the trial court to decide a pending application for stay of civil suit proceedings within two months due to pendency of related criminal case.
Direction to the trial court to decide the pending stay application within two months from the date of this order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
CR No. 1553 of 2012 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 1553 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:13.03.2012
Kanshi Ram
......Petitioner
Vs.
Canara Bank
...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the petitioner.
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.(Oral)
Heard.
The respondent/Canara Bank filed a suit for recovery against the present petitioner. As per learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, criminal proceedings in pursuance to the FIR No.29 registered under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC P.S. Abohar, pertaining to the same transaction in which the present petitioner is the complainant, are pending. Accordingly, the application dated 10.02.2011 (Annexure P-2) was filed before the trial Court raising a prayer for staying the proceedings in the suit till the pendency of the criminal case titled as State Vs. Avtar Singh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that even though, such application was filed on 10.02.2011 and in which the respondent/Bank had even filed a reply thereto, still the application has not been adjudicated upon. Learned counsel would further contend that any findings returned by the civil Court would have a bearing on the criminal proceedings.
CR No. 1553 of 2012 (O&M)
-2-
It is against such background that the present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Abohar to decide the application dated 10.02.2011 (Annexure P-2).
In the light of the submissions, made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to direct the trial Court to decide the application dated 10.02.2012 expeditiously and in any case, within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order.
It is made clear that nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression as regards the merits of the application.
Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
March 13, 2012 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) harjeet JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the trial court to decide the pending stay application expeditiously.
What time limit should be prescribed for the trial court to determine the application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kanshi Ram
Canara Bank
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
