IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2819 of 2011 Date of decision: 29.4.2011 Partap Singh … Petitioner versus Pb.State Civil Supplies Corp.Ltd. and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. V. K.Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: This shall dispose of two revision petitions, namely, C.R. No. 2819 and 2818 of 2011 as they arise out of a similar order passed in two connected cases whereby application filed by the petitioners, who are employees of the respondent-corporation, for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed. The present petitioners in both the civil revisions are defendant-employees in two suits; one for recovery of Rs.4,81,98,267/- titled Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited v. Partap Singh etc. and another for recovery of Rs.46,74,371/- titled Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited v. Gurtej Singh etc. Both of them moved their respective application under Order 7 rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, for rejecting the plaints on the basis of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation v. Sikander Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1438, holding that a loss caused due to negligence of an employee in performance of duty can be recovered in disciplinary proceedings and cannot give rise to cause of action for suit for recovery of money for the loss caused. The trial Court dismissed the applications on the basis of the judgment rendered by this Court in Shakti Kumar v. Punsup, 2009(5) RCR(Civil) 817, saying that the judgment in Sikander Singh's case(supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. C.R. No. 2819 of 2011 -2- Hence, the present revision petitions. Heard. Counsel for the petitioners in all fairness contends that the judgment in Shakti Singh's case(supra) has been challenged in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition on the basis of judgment in Sikander Singh's case(supra) and the said SLP is pending but it has been ordered that in the meantime, the suit may proceed but no final decree is to be passed therein and thus, the counsel further contends that similar order be passed in these cases as well and the revision petitions be disposed of accordingly. It is so ordered. In the present case, the proceedings in the suits may continue but final judgment be not passed till the controversy is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Both the revision petitions, namely, C.R. No. 2819 and 2818 of 2011 stand disposed of. April 29, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE