JUDGMENT S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a defendants application under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order of the first Additional Civil Judge, Meerut rejecting his application to stay the hearing of a suit. The plaintiff respondent is a firm, Messrs Rajendra Prasad Gordhan Prasad of Hapur. It alleged that it had entered in certain forward transactions with the defendant-applicant Ram Nath, who is carrying on business under two different names - Ramnath Ashok Kumar and Bishan Sarup Ram Nath. It further alleged that when the plaintiff firm demanded a cover or margin money from the defendant Ram Nath, the latter executed three hundis of Rs. 6,000/-, Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively and gave them to the plaintiff firm by way of cover money. It further alleged that these Hundis were subsequently dishonoured and the plaintiff was compelled to file a criminal complaint against the defendant Ram Nath on the ground that he had deceived the plaintiff firm, but the plaintiff gave no details regarding the criminal case on the ground that the considerations in the criminal complaint were entirely different from those arising out of the civil suit. The plaintiff asked for a decree for Rs. 21,000/-. The defendant resisted the suit and denied all liability. He admitted that he had executed the three hundis and given them to the plaintiff but denied liability under them. He pleaded inter alia that the alleged transactions were of a wagering nature and therefore hit by Sec. 30 of the Contract Act. 2. The suit was filed on 18-9-1962. The court framed issues and the parties produced evidence in part. There were several hearings. On 1-7-1964 the defendant applicant moved an application for the stay of further proceedings in the case on the ground that the plaintiff had filed a criminal complaint against him under Sec. 420, I. P. C. accusing him of cheating by drawing false Hundis, and that unless the hearing of the civil suit was stayed the applicant would be very seriously prejudiced. He further alleged that the plaintiff had deliberately delayed the trial of the criminal case so that the civil suit could be heard first and any statement by the defendant in the suit could be used against him as an accused in the criminal case. He further alleged that the plaintiff had deliberately delayed the trial of the criminal case so that the civil suit could be heard first and any statement by the defendant in the suit could be used against him as an accused in the criminal case. The learned Civil Judge refused to stay the hearing and the defendant has come here in revision. 3. Mr. S.K. Suri argued that the court below had refused to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 151, C. P. C. and therefore this was a fit case for interference by this Court. He also contended, relying on certain observation of the Supreme Court in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 397 that a simultaneous prosecution of criminal proceedings and a civil suit between the same parties is likely to embarrass the accused and, therefore, the civil suit should be stayed till the disposal of the criminal proceedings. 4. In my opinion, the decision of the trial court is sound. There is no refusal to exercise the courts jurisdiction in this case. The applicant invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court and asked it to stay the suit, but the learned Judge was of the opinion that this was not a fit case for the exercise of the courts inherent power under Sec. 151, C. P. C. A finding that the case is not a fit one for the exercise of the courts inherent jurisdiction is not a refusal to exercise jurisdiction but a decision on merits. If counsel's argument is accepted, every party whose application has been rejected on merits will have the right to come to this Court on the ground that the Court has not exercised its jurisdiction in its favour. 5. Nor do the observations of the Supreme Court help the applicant. I agree that where the same act is both a civil wrong and a crime and a person aggrieved by it files a suit for recovery of damages and also a criminal complaint against the wrong-doer, it is desirable that the hearing of the civil suit should be stayed. But this applies only where the cause of action in the civil suit and the prosecution in the criminal complaint is based upon the same wrongful act. But this applies only where the cause of action in the civil suit and the prosecution in the criminal complaint is based upon the same wrongful act. For example, if A publishes a statement concerning B and B files a suit against A for recovery of damages and also a criminal complaint against him under Sec. 500, I. P. C., the cause of action in the suit and the prosecution are based upon the same wrongful act. In such a case it is desirable that the accused in the criminal case should not be embarrassed by being made to defend the civil suit at the same time. 6. But in the present case the cause of action in the civil suit does not appear to be based on the same facts as the criminal complaint, The plaintiff has not filed a suit for recovery of damages for fraud but for recovery of money allegedly due to him under the hundis. The applicant has admitted in his written statement that he executed the hundis and gave them to the plaintiff and has not denied the fact that these hundis were dishonoured, but he has contended that he is not liable. In the criminal complaint the allegation is that the applicant gave the hundis with the intention to deceive the complainant. But in the civil suit the question whether the applicant executed the hundis honestly or dishonestly does not appear to be relevant to the question whether he is liable under them as maker. I do not wish to make any further comments on the questions which arise in the civil suit and the criminal proceedings respectively, as I do not wish to prejudice the case of either party. But as the two proceedings are not based on the same cause of action there was no justification for staying the civil suit in favour of the criminal case. 7. Moreover, the civil suit has already reached an advanced stage and part of the evidence has been finished. In the Supreme Courts decision, cited by the learned counsel, it was observed that the civil case may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to say it. There is an additional reason for refusing to stay the suit. Moreover, the civil suit has already reached an advanced stage and part of the evidence has been finished. In the Supreme Courts decision, cited by the learned counsel, it was observed that the civil case may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to say it. There is an additional reason for refusing to stay the suit. An application for the stay of civil suit should be made at the earliest opportunity and if the defendant who is also an accused in the criminal case waits till the suit has been heard in part the Court will be justified in refusing to stay the hearing on the ground that this will be unfair to the other party. The inherent jurisdiction of the Court is meant to be exercised in the interests of justice and the Court has to be fair to both parties in exercising it. 8. The application is dismissed with costs.