Sewa Haryana vs Shri D.S. Devesh and Others

J.V. Gupta, C.J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated June 5, 1990, whereby on the application tiled oh behalf of the defendants, the proceedings in the suit have been stayed till the conclusion of the prosecution evidence in case F. I. R. No. 342, dated July 26, 1985 under Sections 406/468/171 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Ambala Cantt.

The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for rendition of accounts and for the recovery of amount Therein the defendants before filing the written statement, moved an application for staying the proceedings in the suit alleging that on similar allegations were the basis of the suit. The plaintiff had filed a criminal complaint against them end if they are required to file the written statement, their deface in the criminal case will be disclosed The said application vas contested on behalf of the plaintiff The trial Court took the view that the proceedings in the civil Court deserved to be stayed till the conclusion of the prosecution evidence as on the same allegations a criminal case is also pending against the defendants because such defendants cannot be subjected to disclose their defence in advance

The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that the civil proceedings could not be stayed. The only provision was Section 10 of the CPC where the proceedings in a subsequent suit could be stayed. Pendency of the criminal proceedings was no ground for staying the civil proceedings. In support of the contention, the learned counsel referred to Union Bank of India v. Shiv Dall Mill 1990 CC C 628 and Harpal Kaur v. Dr. Rajinder Singh (1989) 95 P.L.R. 467, A reference was also made to Phaggu Ram v. The State of Punjab (1957) 59 P.L.R. 57.

After hearing the learned counsel, I find merit in this petition.

It has been held in Shiv Dall Mill''s case (supra) that a civil suit cannot be stayed merely because a criminal case of the same or similar nature is pending. Similar view was taken by this Court in Harpal Kaur''s case (supra). Under the circumstances, the revision petition succeeds. The impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on February 27, 1991.