1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order of learned ADJ whereby an application of the petitioner under Section 151 for stay of suit pending before the ADJ was dismissed.

2. The brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case under Section 326 of IPC and an FIR bearing no. 18/2005 was registered against the petitioner. The incident involved throwing of sulphuric acid on the respondent which caused disfigurement and severe bodily injuries. The respondent also filed a criminal complaint regarding this incident under Sections 307/326/328/201/120-B/506 read with Sections 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C. in the Court of MM. The criminal case as registered against the petitioner as well as the criminal complaint are at the stage of evidence.

3. The respondent filed a civil suit against the petitioner and others claiming damages of Rs. 12 lacs for dis-figuring his face and right side of the body, and for damaging right eye and right ear by throwing sulphuric acid mixture with toxic chemical solution. When the suit came up for hearing, the petitioner did not file WS and moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 for rejection of the plaint. This application was dismissed by the learned ADJ with costs of Rs.500/-. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 151 CPC for stay of proceedings and still did not file WS which was dismissed by the learned ADJ subject to costs of Rs.2,000/-and petitioner was directed to file the written statement as on 22nd April, 2007.

4. The petitioner preferred this petition against the order of the learned ADJ. This Court granted an interim injunction on 20th April, 2007 and directed for service of notice. A perusal of record shows that defective PF was filed on first hearing so the notice could not be served upon the respondent and the interim order continued. Thereafter, the respondent was served for 16th November, 2007. On that date the matter was adjourned to 17th July, 2008. On 17th July, 2008 petitioners counsel was not available to argue the petition and an adjournment was sought. Finding that since the proceedings before the Trial Court had been stayed and the matter was not being argued this Court vacated the stay in view of non-availability of the counsel for arguments and gave direction for filing WS within one week and directed the suit to proceed. The matter was fixed in the Regular Category. Soon after vacating the stay an application for early hearing was made by the petitioner and undertaking was given that the WS shall be filed before the Trial Court within 2 weeks. However, the matter was taken up on 31st October, 2008 for final disposal.

5. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that if the trial of the Civil Court is not stayed, the petitioner would suffer grave prejudice as his defence would get disclosed. This plea of the petitioner is not supported from the facts and circumstances. The criminal case against petitioner is already in progress and is at the stage of evidence. It is the petitioner who is dragging the criminal case and does not allow the Trial Court to proceed and seeks adjournments, as has been done before this Court and due to this reason, the Criminal case shall not drag and evidence shall be over in a short time. The criminal case in which evidence started more than a year back would be at an advanced stage and the civil case is only at the initial stage of filing of WS.

6. The question of disclosure of defence by the petitioner and getting prejudiced does not arise at all. In fact in this petition itself, the petitioner has already disclosed his defence. The only defence taken by the petitioner is that the incident alleged against the petitioner was false and fabricated; in the FIR false allegations have been made; in the complaint also false allegations had been made. This is not a case where certain documents are involved and the petitioner ha