ORDER
Fakhruddin, J.
1. Heard on M. (C). P. No. 75/2002 for condonation of delay in filing the revision.
2. The revision is against the order dated 18-9-2001 passed by the 5th Civil Judge Class-I in Civil Suit No. 2-B/2001. Office note shows that it is barred by five days. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that no sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant for condonation of delay.
3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice the application is allowed. The delay is condoned.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the proceedings of the civil suit should be stayed, as filing of written statement will prejudice the criminal case of the applicant.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the revision is not maintainable. Even otherwise, it is contended that both the proceedings may go on. Learned Counsel for the applicant on the other hand submitted that the Court-below ought to have stayed the suit and since it has not stayed the suit and directed filing of the written statement, the applicant is entitled to challenge the same by way of revision.
7. A perusal of the record shows that the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 26,000/-. The defendant/applicant did not file written statement, on the contrary filed an application under Section 10 of the CPC for staying the proceedings of the civil suit on the ground that a criminal proceeding has been lodged. The criminal proceedings have also been registered for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. The Court below by the impugned order has rejected the application filed by the applicant. The plaintiff has also filed a complaint, which has been registered as Case No. 121/2000.
8. The Court below has considered all the aspects of the matter, facts and circumstances and material available on record and specially the law laid down in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd., reported in 1996(2) MPWN 61 (SC), wherein it has been held that, '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 no 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'; and further the law laid down in the case of Nemi Chand Gangwal and Anr. v. Harish Kumar Jhanwar, reported in 2000(3) M.P.H.T. 194 = 2000(4) Civil L.J. 812, wherein while relying on the law laid down in the case of State of Rajasthan (supra), it is held that, 'it is well settled that a suit filed for recovery of amount covered under the dishonoured cheques should not be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure solely on the ground that criminal proceeding has been instituted'.
9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record, in the opinion of this Court, there is no error of jurisdiction or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
10. The revision accordingly fails and is dismissed.
11. In view of the above order, M. (C). P. No. 75/2002 and I.A. No. 74/2002 for stay also stand disposed of.