CR No. 3404 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3404 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : 31-08 2010 Virender Garg ....Petitioner VERSUS Ravinder Garg and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Kamboj, Advocate for respondent no.1 MAHESH GROVER, J This petition is directed against the order dated 4.5.2010 by which the proceedings in the civil suit have been stayed for the reason that a criminal case initiated by the petitioner pertaining to the same very property is pending. Facts of the case need to be noticed. Petitioner's brother impersonated him and sold the property which belonged to the petitioner resulting in lodging of FIR No.174 dated 22.4.2008. The said property which was sold by the brother of the petitioner was further alienated by the first vendee in favour of the second vendee. This resulted in filing of the suit wherein the petitioner prayed his ownership rights and also prayed that sale deeds in favour of first and second vendee be declared null and void and not binding upon his rights. By virtue of the impugned order, the Trial Court stayed the proceedings in the Civil Court in view of the CR No. 3404 of 2010(O&M) 2 pendency of the criminal proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making a grievance of the impugned order has stated that two distinct cause of actions arise from the facts of the case and in view of this when neither of the cause of action interferes with the other, the stay of the proceedings in the Civil Court has prejudiced his case. Reliance was placed on cases titled as State of Rajasthan vs. M/s Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd. & Ors JT 1996 (3) SC 162, Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam & Anr. vs. State (Delhi Admn.) & Anr. 2009(2) RCR (Criminal)520, Sh. Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Smt. Daya Sapra JT 2009 (13) SC 44 and M.S. Sheriff and another vs. State of Madras and others AIR 1954 SC 397. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand while relying on Iqbal Marwah and another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another AIR 2005 SC 2119, Kusherhwar Dubey vs. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others AIR 1988 SC 2118. and Ashok Kumar Malik vs. Vimla Manchanda 2002 (61) DRJ 359 contends that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. He has stated that Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again has observed that since pendency of criminal proceedings is likely to embarrass the person and also the civil proceedings are likely to take more time to conclude therefore it is expedient and in the interest of justice to stay the proceedings in the Civil Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and relevant material produced before this Court during the course of arguments, I am of the considered opinion that there is no legal impediment in the continuation of the proceedings before the Civil CR No. 3404 of 2010(O&M) 3 Courts as well as the Criminal Courts. Having regard to the aforesaid and also to the facts of the case which reveal two distinct cause of actions having accrued to the petitioner for which he availed of two separate remedies and neither of the two over lap with each other, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. Revision stands allowed. The civil Court shall proceed with the matter. The respondents shall have liberty to file a written statement and the legal bar of 90 days having elapsed would not be a bar for him to file such written statement which he shall do within four weeks. Civil Court shall proceed further thereafter. Petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the Trial Court for revival of the proceedings and the period of four weeks for filing of the written statement shall be construed after the revival of such proceedings. August 31, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge