AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Gopal Reddy, J.—This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the correctness of the order passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District in dismissing the I.A. No. 2514 of 2003 in O.S. No. 698 of 1999 dated 15-9-2004.
Petitioner is the Defendant No. 1 in the suit. The above suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 1,19,025/- under promissory note, in which petitioner resisted the claim. Thereafter, plaintiff filed an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and given up for cross-examination. At that stage, the petitioner filed the above I.A. u/s 10 of CPC seeking stay of all further proceedings in the suit till the disposal of Crl.R.C. No. 1487 of 2003 pending on the file of this Court. For dishonouring of Cheque No. 313041 dated 22-1-1998 for a sum of Rs. 82,330/-, the petitioner was prosecuted for the offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,. 1881 (for short ''the Act'') in C.C. No. 518 of 2001 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Special Mobile Court, R.R. District and the said CC was disposed of convicting the petitioner. Against which an appeal was preferred before the V Additional Senior Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Rangareddy District and the same was also dismissed. Against which petitioner preferred a revision, which is pending.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that ingredients of Section 138 of the Act are not attracted and the petitioner was erroneously convicted and there is every possibility of revision being allowed. In view of the same, it is necessary to stay the proceedings in the suit till the disposal of the revision. For the said proposition he relied upon the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Subho Ram Kalita (Deceased by L.R.s) and Others Vs. Dharmeswar Das Koch and Others, .
It is well settled that when a cheque is dishonoured, it is always open for the payee to proceed against the drawer both under civil for recovery of amount due as well as criminal for the offence u/s 138 of the Act. Legal presumption u/s 139 of the Act is that the cheque was issued for due discharge of a debt and the burden lies on the drawer to discharge the same. Even if the drawer was not convicted for the offence, it is always open for the payee to recover the suit amount by filing a civil suit. The evidence in criminal case may or may not depend the result of the civil suit. In such cases, if requirement of Section 10 CPC are not satisfied, recourse to Section 151 CPC is impermissible for staying the suit.
In view of the fact that the petitioner was already convicted for the offence u/s 138 of the Act on disclose of defence and the same was confirmed in appeal, mere pendency of the criminal revision before this Court is not a ground for staying the proceedings in the suit.
The provisions of Section 10 applies only to civil suits and will not have application where a party after filing a civil suit files criminal complaint in a competent Criminal Court. Merely because the plaintiff has been prosecuted for the offence u/s 138 of the Act, civil suits need not be stayed. (See Mathew v. Sony Cyriac 1995 (2) KLT 128 ; Surajmal v. Kalyan Mal, 1999 AIHC 600 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd. and Others, .
In view of the same, the order passed by the Court below, refusing to stay the proceedings in the civil suit till the disposal of Criminal Revision Case No. 1487 of 2003 pending in this Court does not suffer from any illegality, warranting interference by this Court.
The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.