Himachal Pradesh High Court
CMPMO/574/2017 of DAULAT RAM Vs GIAN DASS on 28 December 2017
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 574 of 2017 Decided on: 28.12.2017 Sh. Daulat Ram …Petitioner Versus Sh. Gian Dass ...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLACMPMO No. 574 of 2017Decided on: 28.12.2017
Sh. Daulat Ram
…Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Gian Dass
...Respondent
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution takesexception to the order passed on 18.12.2017 by the learned trialCourt whereby the application filed by the respondent-defendantbeing CMA No. 334 of 2017 in Civil Suit No. 287 of 2017 has beenallowed and the proceedings in the suit of the plaintiff has beenstayed till the decision of Civil Suit No. 255 of 2017.2.I really wonder, as to how the application which was filed as late as on 12.12.2017, would at the first place, be maintainableand how thereafter the learned trial Court proceeded to pass orderon the same. The reason being that this Court in CMPMO No. 379 of2017, titled Gian Dass & others vs. Daulat Ram & others, videjudgment dated 16.11.2017, dismissed the civil suit No. 255 of 2017as being not maintainable as is evident from para 12 of thejudgment which reads thus:- “In view of the aforesaid discussion, it canconveniently be held that the civil suit instituted bythe petitioners before the Civil Court is notmaintainable. Accordingly, there is no merit in thispetition and the same is dismissed and even the suitinstituted by the petitioners is held to be notmaintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Theparties are left to bear their own costs. Pendingapplication, if any, also stands disposed of.”
3. Therefore, once Civil Suit No. 255 of 2017 is no longer on the docket of the learned trial Court, there was no question of theproceedings in Civil Suit No. 287 of 2017 being stayed, on thepretext that earlier suit being Civil Suit No. 255 of 2017 on the samesubject matter was pending inter se the parties.
4. Accordingly, I find merit in this petition and consequentlythe order passed by the learned trial Court on 18.12.2017 is setaside, leaving all other questions to be agitated before the learnedtrial Court. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on30.12.2017.
Copy dasti.
December 28, 2017 sanjeev
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge.