PRASAD A Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P.C. Thomas, counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank.

(2.) THE suit is one for realisation of money allegedly advanced to the petitioners as education loan. The petitioners seek a stay of the suit in view of the pendency of the criminal investigation. The petitioners contend that criminal investigation centres around the fraudulent transfer of the loan amount. The petitioners assert that neither the college nor the course for which the loan is sanctioned is an approved one and that the amount sanctioned was siphoned off by others.

(3.) BUT the pendency of the criminal prosecution is no ground to stall the civil suit filed by the bank. The impugned order of the court below refusing to stay the suit cannot therefore be faulted with. The court below shall dispose of all the interlocutory applications before delivering final judgment. The petitioners shall also be afforded an opportunity to reopen the evidence closed and adduce evidence on motion made by them. I also add that the judgment of the civil court shall in no way affect the criminal investigation going on with respect to the larger conspiracy alleged. The Original Petition is disposed of. No costs.