C.R.No.7850 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7850 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.12.2011 Rajesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus The State Bank of Patiala and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr.Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the petitioner. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The prayer of the petitioner is for setting aside the order dated 2.12.2011 passed by the trial Court whereby an application filed by him for adjourning the civil suit sine die filed by respondent No.1 till the decision of the appeal filed by it against the judgment dated 9.9.2005 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (in short, “the District Consumer Forum”) to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, “the State Commission, Haryana”). 2. Brief facts may be noticed. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the State Bank of Patiala, Kalka Branch, District Panchkula in the District Consumer Forum, Panchkula and sought a compensation of Rs.5 lacs on account of deficiency of service on the part of the Bank to the petitioner. The complaint was contested by the Bank by filing reply. The said complaint was decided in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 9.9.2005 by the District 1 C.R.No.7850 of 2011 Consumer Forum. Aggrieved thereby, the Bank filed an appeal in the State Commission, Haryana, which is pending. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the trial Court praying that proceedings in the civil suit may be adjourned sine die till the disposal of the appeal by the State Commission, Haryana. The application was contested by the Bank by filing reply. The trial court vide order impugned herein having dismissed the said application, the petitioner has approached this court through the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court had erred in not allowing the application and adjourning the case sine die till the matter was adjudicated by the State Commission, Haryana against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Panchkula. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to demonstrate as to what prejudice had been caused by the order declining the prayer of the petitioner when the civil suit was to be decided on the basis of evidence to be led therein. In such a situation, there was no occasion to adjourn the proceedings sine die before the Civil Court during the pendency of appeal before the State Commission, Haryana. The trial court in para 4 had stated as under:- “4. Having due regards to the contentions raised by the learned counsels for both the parties, the present application has been moved for adjourning the present case sine die, the present suit pertaining to the recovery being filed by the SBOP against the defendant. The plea taken by the applicant-defendant is that a complaint has already been decided relating to the same recovery which was decided in favour of the applicant-defendant and the appeal against the said decision is pending before the Appellate Authority and thus the present suit should not be decided till the decision of the said appeal. However this plea 2 C.R.No.7850 of 2011 cannot be accepted because the present suit is to be decided on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. If any objection with regard to the res judicata etc. has been taken in the written statement being filed by the applicant- defendant, the same would be decided after the evidence is led by both the parties at the appropriate stage. At this stage, no ground is made out for adjourning the case sine die. As such, the present application being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.” 5. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 6. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. December 19, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 3