The pendency of criminal proceedings would not be an impediment to proceed with the civil suit. The court has the discretion to stay the civil suit pending criminal proceedings, but this is not a hard and fast rule and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

( 1 ) THE applicants/defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 14-2-95, passed by the District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 43-A/89, rejecting the applicants application filed under Section 151 CPC seeking stay of the civil suit, have preferred this revision petition.

( 2 ) THE facts material for disposal of the present revision petition are that non-applicant/bank filed a civil suit against defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,26,26,441/- pendente lite and future interest, sale of hypothecated goods and mortgaged property has also been claimed. According to the Bank, transactions commenced in the year 1980 and thereafter the said limits were enhanced several times. The plaintiff/bank submits that lesser rate of the interest was agreed between the parties as the goods to be manufactured by the defendants were to be exported. Bank submitted that contrary to the terms of the agreement, the goods were sold in the open market, were not exported and, therefore, the Bank is entitled to interest at the rate of 18% p. a. The Bank also submitted that after breaking open the locks of the godowns, the defendants surruptiously removed the pledged goods. The Bank feeling aggrieved by the acts of the defendants had also lodged the first information report in relation to the alleged offences. It is not in dispute that a criminal case is pending against the defendants is relation to the said removal of the goods and sale of the articles in the open market2 After putting in appearance, in the civil suit, the defendants moved an application under Section 151 CPC inter alia pleading that as a criminal case is pending against the defendants, on the same set of facts and if the defendants are compelled to file their written statement, their defence in the criminal case shall be seriously prejudiced, they would be required to examine as witnesses in the civil matter as their statements recorded in the civil matter may be used against them in the criminal case. They prayed that till final disposal of the criminal matter, proceedings in the civil suit be stayed. The plaintiff Bank contested the application tooth and nail. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries, (1996) 3 SCC 87, it was contended that pendency of the criminal matters would not be an impediment to proceed with the civil suit.

( 3 ) AFTER hearing the parties, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that by filing the written statement or taking part in the civil suit, the defendants are not likely to suffer any prejudice. The Court found that it was not a fit case where the proceedings in the civil suit were required to be stayed. It accordingly rejected the application being dis-satisfied by the said order, the applicants have preferred this revision petition.

( 4 ) SHRI Revindra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicants states that the judgment in the matter of State of Rajasthan (1996 (3) SCC 87) (supra) is per incuriam. He submits that in the matter of M. S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397, the Supreme Court has clearly observed that in peculiar facts of a particular case, the civil proceedings can be stayed if the Court is convinced that the submission of the defence is likely to cause some prejudice to the defence of the defendants which he is likely to take in the criminal matter. He also submits that filing of the written statement may embarrass the defence or may lead to serious prejudice to his defence in the criminal matter.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, Shri M. N. Agarwal, learned counsel of the non-applicant/bank states that stay of the civil suit cannot be claimed as of a right. He submits that if the criminal action leads to a civil liability, then the civil suit may not proceed till final disposal of the criminal case, but reverse would not be true. He submits that if the plaintiff is entitled to recover the money on basis of some agreement, then the civil