Madhya Pradesh High Court
Central Bank Of India vs Nemichand Harilal Jain And Ors. on 15 November, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(2)MPLJ646
Author: S.B. Sakrikar
Bench: S.B. Sakrikar
ORDER S.B. Sakrikar, J.
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.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that after passing of the order dated 19-8-1982, different High Courts and the Apex Court have held that pendency of the criminal matters would not be an impediment to proceed with the trial of the civil suit pending before the court, in view of the aforesaid position of law, the trial Court should have held the application filed on behalf of the applicant, and revoked the previous order as passed on 19-8-1982. Learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court passed in Civil Revision No. 71/89 decided on 12-3-1992 in the case at Punjab National Bank v. Laxmi Cotton Company and in the decision of the Apex Court reported in JT 1996(3) SC 162, State of Rajasthan v. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd. The counsel also contended that the Court has jurisdiction to discharge, vary or set aside an interim order passed by the Court Under Section 151 of the Code, if found necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. He relied on the decision of this Court rendered in C. R. No. 370192, Central Bank of India v. Laxmi Cotton Company decided on 3-7-1996 (1996 MPIJ1068).
5. On perusal of the order, it is found that the trial Court has rejected the applicant's application solely on the ground that since the earlier order dated 19-8-1982, was not challenged by the applicant/plaintiff in revision or otherwise, the same cannot be recalled or modified by taking recourse to Section 151 of the Code. The order dated 19-8-1982 staying the proceedings of the suit was passed by the trial Court in exercise of its inherent powers Under Section 151 of the Code. As such the Court under the same provisions, has power to discharge, vary or set aside such interim order if it is found necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court therefore, the Court had jurisdiction to revoke the order passed on 19-8-1982 if it appears necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the Court.
6. Considering the case on merits and on perusal of the decision of this Court and the Apex Court, I find that the point projected in this revision petition stands resolved by the recent decision of the Apex Court in case of State of Rajasthan v. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd. (supra) The Apex Court has held as under :
"It is settled law that pendency of the criminal matters would not be an impediment to proceed with the civil suits. The criminal court would deal with offence punishable under the Act, On the other hand, the courts rarely stay the criminal cases and only when the compelling circumstances require the exercise of power. We have never come across stay of any civil suits by the courts so far. The High Court of Rajasthan is only an exception to pass such orders. The High Court proceeded on wrong premise that the accused would be expected to disclose their defence in the criminal case by asking them to proceed with the trial of the suit. It is not a correct principle of law. Even otherwise, it longer subsists, since many of them have filed their defences in the civil suit. On principle of law, we hold that the approach adopted by the High Court is not correct. But since the defence has already been filed nothing survives in this matter."
The same view was reiterated by this Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Laxmi Cotton Company; Civil Revision No. 71 of 1989 decided on 12-3-1992.
7. In view of the aforesaid subsequent trends and decisions of this Court and the Apex Court, the trial Court should have allowed the application filed on behalf of the applicant Under Section 151 of the Code and should have recalled its previous order passed on 19-8-1982 staying the proceedings of the civil suit during pendency of the criminal cases against the NA/defendants. It is needless to say that in the instant case also the defendants have filed their written statement, therefore, the question of disclosure of their defence for a criminal case would not arise. As such, the defendants are not entitled to get the proceedings of the civil suit stayed for further period.
8. As a result of the foregoing discussions, the revision petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the trial Court is set aside and its earlier order dated 19-8-1982 staying the proceedings of the civil suit is revoked. There shall be no orders as to costs.