JUDGMENT This revision is directed against the order dated 20th July' 92 of Vth Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore, passed in Civil suit No. 9-A-90, whereby the defendant-non- applicant's prayer for stay of the proceedings has been rejected. Brief history of the case is that the plaintiff-non applicant filed a suit in the Court referred to above, with the assertion that the defendant has taken loan for purchasing a vehicle and has neither paid the instalments nor the principal amount and therefore suit for recovery. It is alleged that for taking loan a forged document showing purchase of the vehicle was produced before the Bank as the loan was granted for the purpose of purchasing a vehicle. FIR has been lodged against the defendant-applicant for forging the document about the purchase of vehicle. The contention of learned counsel for the defendant-applicant is that so long criminal investigation of prosecution is going on present suit be stayed. The learned trial Court has refused to oblige in Deft. and hence this revision. Learned counsel has submitted on the basis of a case reported in 1954 SC 397 that if two separate proceedings (Civil & Criminal) arc going on with the same cause of action the Civil proceedings should be stayed, so long the criminal proceedings have not ended. I am in respectful agreement with the observations made therein, but this case is clearly distinguishable. The suit is for the recovery of loan. It has got nothing to do with the forged document. The criminal prosecution is with respect to the forgery of the document showing purchase of the vehicle. Thus, clearly there are two different causes of action and, therefore, the suit for recovery of loan can continue without making any hindrance in the defence of the accused. The revision has no force, it is accordingly dismissed without notice to the opposite partly.