Civil Revision No. 7252 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7252 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 26th, 2011 Anoop Bhakoo .... Petitioner Versus Oswal Yarns Limited and others .. Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana vide order dated 24.8.2011 (Annexure P4) dismissed the application of defendants No. 1 to 3 filed under the provisions of section 151 CPC for adjourning the suit sine die. Anoop Bhakoo, a parner of M/s Sutlej Knitwear, has challenged this order by way of this revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Oswal Yarns Limited, respondent no.1 had filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.5,02,303/- as principal amount and Rs.2,27,475/- as interest at the rate of 24% per annum with effect from 1.1.1999 till the date of filing of suit as also for pendentilite and future interest against the Civil Revision No. 7252 of 2011 2 .. petitioner and other respondents. The said amount was claimed as price of the goods sold by respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioner and other respondents. The said suit is contested by the petitioner and other respondents and is at the stage of evidence of the defendants. At this stage, the defendants filed an application under section 151 CPC for adjourning the suit sine die in view of pendency of Criminal Misc. Petition No.35560 of 2009 filed before this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is claimed in the application that respondent No.1 had also filed complaints under the provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In those applications, filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, Anoop Bhakoo, the petitioner has filed an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint titled Oswal Yarns Ltd. Vs. M/s Sutlej Knitwear & Others. A demand draft in a sum of Rs. 5,02,303/- is lying deposited with the Registry of this court and the same represents the principal amount claimed in the suit. Claiming that the matter involved in both the proceedings, i.e., the Criminal Misc. petition and the suit is the same, prayer is made for adjournment of the suit sine die till disposal of that Criminal Misc. petition. In reply, it is denied by the plaintiff that the subject matter of the complaint and the present suit is the same. It is also denied that on account of pendency of criminal proceedings, the civil matter could be adjourned sine die. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court has dismissed the application vide order dated 24.8.2011 (Annexure P4) for Civil Revision No. 7252 of 2011 3 .. the reasons that the court is not required to express any opinion about the subject matter of the criminal proceedings and the suit being the same and that the Criminal Misc. petition is yet not accepted and no compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition has been brought by one of the defendants. I have heard Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the amount of Rs. 5,02,303/- lying deposited with the Registry of this court in the shape of demand draft is the principal amount claimed in the civil suit. According to him, although interest is claimed in the suit at the rate of 24% per annum, yet under section 61(2) of Sale of Goods Act or section 3 of the Interest Act, interest cannot be allowed at this rate. According to him, there is moreover, no contract between the parties regarding payment of interest. He has submitted that in the absence of contract for payment of interest, the interest payable would not be more than 6% per annum. He has claimed that the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount of interest calculated at this rate in the court and on deposit of the same, the suit may be adjourned sine die. According to him, the subject matter of the criminal proceedings and the suit is the same and the matter may be settled between the parties in the Criminal Misc. petition and there would be no need for decision of the suit. I am not impressed by the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has not been able to show as to how the Civil Revision No. 7252 of 2011 4 .. subject matter of the criminal proceedings and the civil suit is the same. In the criminal proceedings, brought under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused are prayed to be punished for issuing cheques, which were dishonoured on presentation. If any amount has been deposited in the proceedings brought under section 482 Cr. P.C. on the orders of this court, then that does not amount to payment of the principal amount claimed by respondent No.1 in its suit. In the suit, the plaintiff has sought recovery of not only the principal amount but also the interest. The questions as to whether there is any contract between the parties for payment of interest or is there any usage of the market with regard to the same or at what rate the interest could be allowed by the court on the price of the goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendants, are to be decided by the trial court. The submissions made in this regard would have to be made before the trial court. There is no bar against simultaneous filing of civil suit for recovery of the price of the goods sold by the plaintiff to the defendants and for punishment of the defendants, who had issued cheques which were dishonoured. In the civil suit which can independently proceed, the plaintiff has sought recovery of the price of its goods sold to the defendants against the payment of which they had issued cheques, which were dishonoured on presentation. They are also entitled to interest. The plaintiff has already led its evidence and the defendants have also availed several opportunities for their evidence before moving this application. The application clearly appears to be an abuse of process of the court. It appears to be a method to delay the proceedings Civil Revision No. 7252 of 2011 5 .. and to avoid leading of the evidence and decision of the suit. Learned trial court had, therefore, committed no illegality in dismissing the application. Consequently, the revision petition is found to have no merit and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 26th, 2011 som