This revision petition is filed by the petitioners/defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed in I.A.No.205 of 2008 in O.S.No.300 of 2005, dated 30.06.2006 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC) Guntur, wherein and whereby the application purported to have been filed by the petitioners under Section 10 of C.P.C., seeking to stay all the proceedings in O.S.No.300 of 2005 was dismissed.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar and Smt. M.Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents herein filed a suit against the petitioners herein for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,16,414-35 ps for alleged misappropriation of funds, while working as employees in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Guntur, during the period 1996 to 1998. Thereafter, criminal proceedings were initiated against the first petitioner and F.I.R. was lodged against him on the charge of mis-appropriation in Cr.No.158 of 2003. In simultaneous proceedings initiated by the respondents in C.C.No.194 of 2007 on the file of the Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur, the wife of the first petitioner was discharged. Therefore, since they are simultaneously sought to be proceeded against, along with departmental proceedings, the first petitioner prayed to stay all further proceedings in the suit by way of filing an application in I.A.No.205 of 2008 under Section 10 C.P.C. The said application was contested by the respondents, stating that the said application is not maintainable for the reason that there is no prior suit or any other proceedings pending in the court below and as the suit in O.S.No.300 of 2005 is not similar to that of C.C.No.194 of 2007, Section 10 C.P.C., has no application, apart from denying on merits.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that having regard to the similarity in the nature of allegations both civil and criminal, witnesses being one and the same and since the civil suit is subsequent to the criminal case, in order to avoid conflicting decisions, the proceedings in the suit are liable to be stayed till the finding is given in the criminal case. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the trial in the suit has already commenced and the same is coming up for continuation of the evidence of the witnesses in chief, Section 10 C.P.C., cannot be invoked. Taking into consideration the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusing the material placed before this Court, the point that arises for consideration is, whether on the facts and circumstances the application filed by the petitioners under Section 10 C.P.C. is sustainable or not. Admittedly, the petitioners are employees in the unit of the respondent. On the allegation of mis-appropriation of funds made by the first petitioner and others assisting him, the respondent herein filed a suit against the petitioners for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,16,414-35 ps. Simultaneously, criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings were initiated against them. To consider the scope, it is necessary to have a look at the main provision under Section 10 C.P.C., which reads as follows:

Stay of Suit:- No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court".

From a bare reading of the above said provision it is seen that the issue involved in both the cases i.e., the present suit and th