CAUVERY KALPATHARU GRAMEENA DANK CA-20, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, MYSORE-570017 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND THE BRANCH MANAGER CAUVERY GRAMEENA BANK HEBBAL LAYOUT BRANCH, MYSORE Vs. M/S CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY RE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.9.2011. passed on I.A. No. 2 which is an application filed under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking stay of further proceedings in O.S. No. 364/2009 pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Mysore, in view of the proceedings commenced by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) before the XXXII Addl. City Civil & Session Judge. Bangalore, against defendant Nos. 3 and 5 others who are all the officers/staff members of the plaintiff institute.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are that the respondent No. ] who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 364/2009. has sought for recovery of money against the petitioners herein, which is a rural bank. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed under Section 151 of the CPC for staving further proceedings in the said suit. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court. It is against the said order that this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) FROM a reading of the plaint, It becomes clear that the first respondent has filed the suit for recovery of money from the petitioner/bank and an official of the first respondent institute and an official of the petitioner/bank. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are other officials of the first respondent institute who have not been made parties in the suit by the first respondent/plaintiff and instead, the entire amount is sought to be fastened on the petitioner. He. therefore, submits that till the proceeding instituted by the CBI is concluded, the suit cannot be proceeded with, in the suit. It is necessary to observe that this is not an application under Section 10 of the CPC seeking stay of proceeding in the suit. The first respondent has sought for recovery of money as against the petitioner/bank and one official of the first respondent institute by contending that there has been several illegalities committed and that the first respondent institute has suffered financial loss. The cause of action for the suit is quite different from the proceedings instituted by the C.B.I., after conducting enquiry. In case the petitioner is of the opinion that there are other officials of the first respondent institute as well as of the Petitioner Bank who are guilty of causing financial loss to the first respondent/plaintiff institute, in that case, the petitioner is at liberty to seek impalement of the other officials also in the suit, since proceedings have been initiated against other officials by the OBI. The contention of the petitioners' counsel that Petitioner Bank is not liable in the suit and that it is only officials of the first respondent/plaintiff and the officials of the bank who would be liable is a matter which has to be taken into consideration in the suit. In that view of the matter, the trial court was justified in dismissing the application and the said order does not call for any interference in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is also rejected.