( 1 ) wp9282.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9282 OF 2010 Ramavatar s/o. Sagarmal Saboo .. Petitioner Versus Swarnasingh s/o. Arjunsingh .. Respondent Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.R. Warma, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 14.01.2011 P.C. :- 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner filed suit for recovery of amount, which allegedly was lent to the respondent (borrower). Special Civil Suit No. 472 of 2009 is scheduled for hearing. The petitioner also filed a separate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the cheque issued by the respondent was dishonoured. The ( 2 ) wp9282.10 petitioner submitted application (Exh.27) in the suit, for adjournment. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application on the ground that it would be violative of Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Criminal Proceedings are at terminal stage, it would be appropriate to stay the proceedings of the Civil Suit and that is why the adjournments were being sought. 4. The proceedings of the Civil Court cannot be stayed on such ground because the remedy under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a summary remedy and that too the main object thereof is to punish an offender who would commit offence. In Civil Suit the rights of the petitioner would depend upon different grounds and basically on the ground of money lending transaction alleged by him. There is no substantial reason to stay the proceedings of the suit and the adjournment, however, could not have been rejected because it was fifth one. Rupees ten could not have been refused. In any case, the Trial Court granted time on ( 3 ) wp9282.10 payment of costs of Rs. 10/-. There is nothing perverse in the impugned order. 5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. But, the Trial Court is directed to allow the petitioner to lead evidence by giving opportunity of seeking only three adjournments on sufficient ground and not more and to finally dispose of the suit within a period of six months. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2011/JAN11/wp9282.10