Civil Revision No. 4329 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4329 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.08.2009 Kesar Singh and others ....Petitioners versus Karamjit Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. N.K. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) CM No. 15789-CII of 2008 Allowed. The applicant-appellants are exempted from filing the certified copy of Annexure P-1. CR No. 4329 of 2008 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.2.2008, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which the application moved by the petitioner/defendant for stay of the suit, has been ordered to be dismissed. The averments made in the application were, that the plaintiff/respondents concluded their evidence, wherein it was revealed, that the criminal case regarding FIR No. 20 dated 1.4.1999 was pending before the High Court, and was not yet decided. It was pleaded, that the Civil Revision No. 4329 of 2008 (O&M) -2- present suit was with regard to the claim, arising out of the incident qua which the FIR No. 20 dated 1.4.1999 was registered. The learned trial Court was pleased to dismiss the application. The operative part of the order passed reads as under: - “Therefore, provisions of Section 10 apply to the suits only but does not apply to Civil suits and criminal proceedings. Therefore since provisions of section 10 does not apply to the instant situation and this case has been filed independently by the plaintiff seeking damages for recovery of Rs. 5 lac on account of death of Nachattar Singh allegedly caused by defendant as compensation and plaintiffs are to prove their Civil suit independently. Therefore, in view of above reasons, instant application for staying the proceedings of instant case is without any merits. Hence application dated 1.8.2007 for staying the proceedings is hereby dismissed.” Mr. N.K. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently contends, that the application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure ought to have been allowed, as the subject matter in dispute in the criminal proceedings and that in the civil suit, was the same and the parties were also same. The learned Courts below committed an error in not staying the suit, though the conditions stipulated in Section 10 CPC were fully met with. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends, that as the appeal is continuation of the proceedings, therefore, it is to be taken that the proceedings pending between the parties on criminal side were arising out of the same cause of action. Therefore, there was likelihood of two contrary judgments being pronounced by the Court in same Civil Revision No. 4329 of 2008 (O&M) -3- matter, which would defeat the very object of Section 10 CPC. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The findings of the criminal Court are not binding on the civil Court, therefore, there is no ground to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there are chances of two contrary judgments being passed in the same dispute. Proceedings in civil suit cannot be stayed by invoking provisions of Section 10 CPC, on the plea of pendency of criminal case. It is well settled law that both the criminal and civil proceedings can go on simultaneously. The order passed by the learned Courts below is based on well settled law, which does not call for any interference by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 06, 2009 R.S.