JUDGMENT V.K. JHANJl, J.- The respondent-bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10, 394.70 by way of sale of property mortgaged with the bank, and also by passing a personal decree against defendants,
2. It was claimed in the suit that the defendants whose partners are defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were maintaining an account with the bank, and from time to time, had been weithdrawing the money by presenting cheques, and hundis discounted. It was further claimed that on July 30, 1981, defendants Nos. 1 to 4 presented a cheque dated June 3, 1981, of the State Bank of India, Guntur Bazar, issued by defendant No. 5 in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 4, but the same was dishonoured.
Again, defendants Nos. 1 to 4 approached the bank and got discounted G.R. Dated July 22, 1981, along with a hundi dated July 24, 1981; a bill was also presented with the same. The hundi was for Rs. 74,000. The said hundi was discounted and the amount was credited to the current account of defendant No. 1, from where, defendants Nos. 1 to 4, withdrew the amount for the purpose of their business. When the hundi was presented for collection, the same was received back dishonoured.
It has also been stated that defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in order to secure the payment of amount of the aforesaid cheque and hundi, had agreed to equitably mortgage the property in favour of the bank.
Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 failed to make payment of the amount relating to the cheque and the hundi.
The bank thereafter, made inquiries from the transport company whose goods receipts were attached along with the hundi. The transport company informed the bank that the G.Rs. Are forged and fictitious documents. The bank therefore, filed a suit for the recovery of amount as well as lodged a criminal complaint with the police against the defendants.
3. The criminal proceedings launched against the defendants are at a very initial stage as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners. He stated at the Bar that the prosecution has yet to examine its witnesses, who according to him are more than 60. In the suit, the evidence of the plaintiff has already been concluded, whereas the statement of the defendant has to be recorded. At this stage, an application was filed that proceedings in the civil suit be stayed because any decision given in the civil suit may not embarrass the defendants in criminal proceedings. The application on contest by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. This order is being impugned by the defendants by way of this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that proceedings in the civil suit should be stayed because decision in the civil suit will embarrass the defendants in criminal proceedings. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397.
5. On the other hand, Learned counsel for the respondent- bank submitted that proceedings in the civil suit cannot be stayed merely because criminal proceedings are pending. He further submitted that such a step can be taken after considering the facts and circumstances of each case.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, I find no merit in the revision petition.
7. I have gone through the plaint, and find that the suit is primarily for the recovery of amount on account of the cheque and hundi having been dishonoured. If the proceedings in the civil suit are stayed till criminal proceedings are decided, the bank is certainly going to suffer loss because recovery of the amount will have to be postponed till the criminal proceedings are finally decided, In M. S. Sheriff's case, AIR 1954 SC 397, the Supreme Court held that there is no hard and fast rule that the civil proceedings are to be stayed till the conclusion of criminal proceedings. Moreover, after perusal of the plaint, I find th&t no embarrassment is going to be caused to the defendants in the criminal proceedings if the civil suit is allowed to continue which is only for the recovery of amounts based on cheque as well as hundi which were got encashed by the defendants. Since, only the statement of defendant is to be recorded, the trial Court shall fix a date for the statement of defendant. The defendant shall be given one opportunity to give his statement. In case the defendant fails to present himself on the date so fixed, his evidence will be deemed to have been closed.
8. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on February 25, 1992.