Civil Revision No. 912 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 912 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.4.2010 Vijay Garg ..... Petitioner vs Jiwan Garg and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Munish Kumar Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 in person. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the learned court below adjourning the proceedings since die till the decision of application under Section 340 Cr. P.C. filed by respondents no. 1 and 2/plaintiffs, inter-alia, for taking action against the contesting defendants and their counsels on account of their manipulation regarding recording of presence before the court below etc. Both the respondents are present in person. It was submitted by them that they have no objection to the continuation of the proceedings in suit during the pendency of the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., however, some of the issues which required consideration by the court below have been kept pending for a long time. The grouse raised by respondents no. 1 and 2 is that it is not clearly defined on the record that which of the defendants are represented by which counsel. He has specifically raised objection regarding defendants no. 4 to 8, 10, 13 and 14. The submission is that different power of attorneys were filed by these defendants. In some of them their signatures were there but in the relevant column, defendant number had not been mentioned. In other power of attorney, the defendant number was mentioned but the signatures were not there. The issue was got clarified from the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He has stated that Shri Tej Paul Bhardwaj and Shri Sushil Kumar Vashishtha, Advocates, are appearing for the aforesaid defendants. The another issue raised by the respondents/plaintiffs was that some of the applications filed by them have not been decided by the court below. He has submitted that application for production of documents under Order 11 Rule 12 Civil Revision No. 912 of 2010 2 CPC, application under Order 32 CPC for appointment of guardian of some of the minor defendants, review application against the order dated 11.10.2008 regarding interim injunction and appointment of receiver and some other applications for review/clarification against the earlier orders passed by the court are pending before the court below. He submitted that his grouse is satisfied if the court below decides the application filed under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC; application under Order 32 CPC; review application against the order dated 11.10.2008; regarding interim injunction and appointment of receiver on merits, after hearing counsel for the parties, whereas all other applications may be treated as not pressed by him. Considering the fair stand of the respondents/plaintiffs, the order passed by the court below on 11.12.2009 adjourning the proceedings in the suit sine die, is set aside and the learned court below is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The review applications filed by respondents no. 1 and 2/ plaintiffs against order dated 11.10.2008 and also the other two applications regarding production of documents and appointment of guardian shall be decided expeditiously, in any case before the court closes for summer vacations. Disposed of. 6.4.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge