COURT HAS POWER TO REVOKE OR MODIFY STAY ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 151, C. P. C. IF IT IS FOUND NECESSARY FOR THE ENDS OF JUSTICE OR TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS.

( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 27-2-1992 whereby the applicant-plaintiff's application u/s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking revocation of the order dated 28-7-1989 passed by the trial Court, was rejected.

( 2 ) THE applicant is the plaintiff in the case. He has filed suit against the respondents for recovery of Rs. 2,80,135,71 on 18-1-1982. It appears that regarding the same transaction the respondents are being prosecuted by C. B. I. in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Indore on various charges under the I. P. C. The respondent-defendants after putting written statement in the suit made an application to the trial Court praying that in view of the pendency of the criminal case, further proceedings in the civil suit be stayed. The trial Court vide its order dated 28-7-1989 allowed the application and ordered for stay of the proceedings of the Civil Suit pending the decision of the criminal case against the respondents. Since then no much progress seems to have made in the criminal case and as such the proceedings in the civil suit still remain stayed. On 30-3-1992 the applicant-plaintiff made an application to the Court below seeking revocation of the earlier order dated 28-7-1989. The application was resisted by the respondent-defendants. The Court below after hearing both the parties rejected the application vide its impugned order, thus giving rise to this Revision.

( 3 ) I have heard Shri S. C. Consul, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri R. Waghmare, learned Counsel for the non-applicants.

( 4 ) THE Court below has rejected plaintiff's application solely on the ground that since the earlier order dated 28-7-1989 was not challenged by the applicant-plaintiff in revision or otherwise, the same cannot be recalled or modified by taking recourse to Sec. 151, C. P. C. This is what precisely contended by the learned Counsel for the non-applicants before this Court. I am, however, not persuaded by the argument.

( 5 ) THE order dated 28-7-1989 staying proceedings in the suit was passed u/s. 151, C. P. C. obviously for the reason that there is no specific provision in the Code to deal with the problem. Needless to add that the Court under the same provision, has power to discharge, vary or set aside such an interim order if it is found necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Reference in this regard can be had to the provision of Rule 4 of Order 39 of the Code which authorises the Court granting temporary injunction under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39, to discharge, vary or set aside the order. There can be thus, no manner of doubt that the Court below had u/s. 151 power to rescind or modify the stay order made by it under that provision.

( 6 ) COMING to the merits of the case, at the outset I find that the point projected in this Revision stands resolved by a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industrieslimited, (1996) 3 JT (SC) 162. The Apex Court held :"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 suits. On principle of law, we hold that the approach adopted by the High Court is not correct. But since t