S.K. Dubey, J.

1. This is a revision against the order dated 2-8-1986, passed in Civil Suit No. 11-A/83. by the Xth Additional Judge, to the Court of District Judge, Indore, whereby the trial Court stayed the proceedings of the Civil Suit till pendency of the Criminal Proceedings pending against the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 under S. 407 and 420, IPC. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,65,754.70 on the ground that the bill of exchange issued by the defendant No. 1. were dishonoured. It was, however, urged by the Bank that the defendants are jointly and sevcrally liable for payment to the Bank on various grounds made in the plaint. Prior to the filing of the suit, admittedly, criminal complaint was filed by the plaintiff Bank against defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 under Ss. 407 and 420, I.P.C. After filing of the written-statement, the defendants moved an application under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 1st March, 1986, wherein it was stated that the Criminal Case No. 953/82, is pending in the Court of First Judicial Magist-rate, Indore on the same allegations, which are in the suit and in case, the suit is allowed to proceed, their defence will be prejudiced. The reply was filed by the plaintiff on 5-4-1986. After hearing the parties, the trial Court found that allegations are common in the criminal complaint as well as in the suit. The Court relying upon the case of the Apex Court in Sheriff v. State of Madras AIR 1954 SC 397., and on another case of this Court reported in Mohanlal v. Sheo-ram C. R. No. 27/86., after considering the pleadings of the parties and the submissions made in the suit held that if the civil Suit is allowed to proceed the defendants, who are accused in the criminal proceedings will be prejudiced by disclosure of their defence.

2. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff Bank has come up before this Court in revision. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Bank is that as the written statement was filed, the defence has already been disclo-sed. Therefore, no question of prejudice or embarrassment in facing the criminal trial arises. Shri Dave, learned counsel for the Bank relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court delivered in M/s. Economic Packing v. M/s. Mount Metur Pharmaceuticals 1981 JLJ SN 24., decided on 9-3-1987.

3. Shri Waghmare, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant, defendants, contended that in revision no interference is called for, as the discretion has been exercised by the trial Court judiciously after appreciating the pleadings, complaint and respective submissions by the parties before the trial Court. Not only this, learned counsel for the parties agreed before the trial Court that the grounds in criminal case as well as of the Civil Suit are the same. In the circumstances, his contention is that there is no difference in the facts constituting the causes of action for two different proceedings except one is for recovery of the amount and another is for punishing the defend-ants-accused for the alleged offences said to have been committed by them. Learned counsel placed reliance on the Apex Court decision in Sheriffs case (Supra) and Mohan Lal's case of this Court (Supra). Besides, he also relied upon number of unreported judgments passed in Punjab National Bank v. Hardeo Motilal & Engg.C. R. No. 298/86; 9-12-1986. Mohanlal v. Sheoram C. R. No. 1170/80; 16-1-1981., Prahlad Singh and Another v. Anoop Singh C. R. No. 369/8C; 9-2-1982., and Nemichand s/o Shantilal v. Mahavir Kumar C. R. No. 719/80; 3-2-1981.. By lending support from the various cases referred to above, Shri Waghmare, learned counsel submitted that filing of written statement is no bar for stay of trial of Civil suit because the prejudice and embarrassment will arise at the time of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and while leading evidence in defence.

4. After hearing of the counsel of both the parties, and on perusal of the record of the trial Court, 1