Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. (2). This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 17th August,98, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) rejected the prayer of the petitioner to stay the proceedings of the civil suit on the ground that the criminal cases relating to same property and almost on the same facts was pending before the criminal Court. (3). The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the civil suit is allowed to proceed, the petitioner would be bound to submit his written statement and this would amount to compelling the petitioner to disclose his defence, which may be available to him for the purpose of defending him in the criminal case. (4). So far as the criminal cases are concerned it is well established that in a criminal trial, an accused person has the right to remain silent if he wants to remain silent. Therefore, he cannot be compelled to disclose his defence or give his version about the alleged occurrence. But opportunity is given to him to exercise the right to be defended, right from the moment he is proceeded against untill the case is finally disposed of. But this right does not extend to proceedings other than the inquiry or trial pending against him in the criminal Court. (5). So far as the rights of the parties in the civil suit are concerned, my attention has not been drawn to any provision of law, which may be said to entitle the parties to a right to silence or a right to delay the disclosure of facts, which are relevant for the disposal of the case. Section 165 of the Evidence Act entitles the Court to put any question to any party at any time and no party can question the power of the Court to put questions. The power u/s 165 of the Evidence Act can be exercised by the Court at any time and the party is bound to answer the question or comply with the directions of the Court and the powers u/S. 165 of the Evidence Act is subject only to the right to silence available to the accused person in a criminal case. (6). (6). In the case of property, which is involved in civil litigation and in respect of which an offence is alleged to have been committed, so far as the allegations made in the criminal complaint is concerned, the property may be the same, but the cause of action for institution of criminal proceedings and civil proceedings cannot be said to be identical and therefore, the defence, which may be available to the party, who is proceeded against, cannot be said to be identical in both the cases. In view of these facts, I find no legal infirmity in the order dated 7th August, 98 passed by the learned Civil Judge. (7). The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the observations made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in M/s Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (1). In that case, a complaint u/S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been filed against the defendant and simultaneou- sly proceedings by way of a civil suit for recovery of the amount of cheque were also instituted. Both the proceedings arose from the recording the statement of the accused u/S. 313 Cr. P.C. The facts of that case were different and therefore, the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to this case. (8). The petition has no force and it is dismissed accordingly.