SHRI NIWAS CLOTH STORES Vs. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated April 28, 1989, passed by the District Judge, Merta, by which the learned District Judge dismissed the application under Section 151 C.P.C. filed by the defendant -petitioner and refused to stay the proceedings in the civil suit.

(2.) PLAINTIFF United Commercial Bank (UCO bank) filed a suit in the Court of the learned District Judge, Merta, against the defendant for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 14,08,500/ -. The suit was filed on the basis of the Statement of the Bills Purchase Account and the amount of which was admitted by the defendant While confirming the balance on February 3, 1984. It was. also, stated In the plaint that this amount fell due against the defendant on account of Cash -credit facilities given to the defendant firm on September 20, 1978, and in pursuance of this Cash -credit facility, certain bills were purchased by the bank, which were not be honoured by the parties and the goods remained with the bank, against which the money was advanced to the defendant. After the service of the summons, the defendant filed an application under Section 151 C.P.C. for staying the proceedings in the suit. It was averred in the application that simultaneously a criminal proceeding with respect to this very transaction has been started against the proprietor of the firm, viz., Bhanwar Lal, and a case has been instituted against him, which is pending in the Court of the Special Judge, C.B.I, cases, Jodhpur, and the material facts of the criminal case pending in the Court of the Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Jodhpur, and that of the present civil suit are the same. It was, therefore, prayed that the simultaneous proceedings in the civil suit may be stayed so that no harassment may be caused to the defendant -applicant. This application was opposed by the plaintiff and the learned District Judge, by his order dated April 28, 1989, dismissed the application filed by the defendant -petitioner. It is against this order dated April 28, 1989, dismissing the application filed by the defendant that the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the Court below.