CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. NEMICHAND HARILAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant/plaintiff has directed this petition against the order dated 20-8-1992; rendered by X Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 115-B/88; thereby dismissing the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff/applicant Under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code'), seeking revocation of the order dated 19-8-1982, whereby the plaintiff/applicant's suit was stayed during the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the NA/defendants.

(2.) FACTS of the case, in brief, are that the applicant/plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant/nas/borrower and guarantors (Transport Company and Insurance Company) for the recovery of the loan advanced to NA Nos. 1 and 2. After filing of the written statement, the defendants have filed the application before the trial Court for stay of the suit on the ground that some criminal proceedings are pending against them with regard to same transaction. The trial Court by its order dated 19-8-1982, accepted the application and stayed the suit. During continuance of the aforesaid order, on 30th March, 1992, the applicant filed the application before the trial Court Under Section 151 of Code seeking revocation of the order dated 19-8-1982 on the ground that at the time of passing of the previous order, the trend of decisions, in the matters of similar nature the aforesaid civil suits used to be stayed during the pendency of the criminal proceedings arising out of the same transaction but later on the trend of authorities started changing. The Courts held that pendency of the criminal cases will not come in the way of the Court for the disposal of pending civil cases with regard to the same transaction. The aforesaid application of the applicant was dismissed by the impugned order. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this revision petition against the impugned order of the trial Court.

(3.) 1 have heard Shri S. C. Consul learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Dhupar learned counsel for the NA No. 11. None appeared for other NAs though the SPC was issued to them.