Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bora Geetha Reddy, vs Bora Gurramma, on 16 November, 2022
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1604 of 2022
Between:
Bora Geetha Reddy, D/o B.Apparao Reddy,
aged 40 years, Door No.1-52/1, Paradesipalem
village, Chingagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam
Rural and 2 others.
... Petitioners/Defendants 1 to 3.
Versus
Bora Gurramma, W/o (late) Appala Ramu,
aged 55 years, R/o 1-70/1, Paradesipalem
village, Chingagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam
Rural-531163.
... Respondent/Plaintiff.
Counsel for the petitioners : Sri N.Nanda Kishore
Counsel for respondent : ---
ORDER
Defendants 1 to 3 in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 21.07.2022 in I.A.No.206 of 2022 in O.S.No.234 of 2020 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam.
2. Plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.234 of 2020 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from 2 interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that plaint schedule property an extent of Ac.0.10 cents in S.No.33/2D of Paradesipalam, Chinagadhili Mandal, Visakhapatnam, was succeeded by plaintiff by way of succession from her husband; that plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same from 15 years; that husband of plaintiff succeeded to schedule property after death of his father and thus, it is ancestral property of husband of plaintiff; that defendants, neighbors of plaintiff, grabbed the Government land and they have political influence and when they tried to interfere with plaintiff's possession, suit was filed seeking injunction.
4. Pending the suit, defendants filed I.A.No.206 of 2022 under Section 10 of CPC to stay the proceedings in O.S.No.234 of 2020 till the disposal of C.C.No.124 of 2020 on the file of XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.
3
5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended interalia that the suit was filed for permanent injunction; that plaintiff initiated criminal action against the deponent and her mother, basing on the same police registered Crime No.106 of 2019 for the offences under Section 447, 427, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and the same was numbered as C.C.No.124 of 2020; that the issues involved in the suit and points for determination in criminal case are directly and substantially one and the same and hence, filed the application for the relief stated supra.
6. By order dated 21.07.2022, the Court below dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.
7. Sri V.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel representing Sri N.Nanda Kishore, learned counsel for petitioners would submit that suit O.S.No.234 of 2020 is filed for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession of schedule property. He would submit that plaintiff initially filed criminal case against 1st defendant and her mother and the same was numbered as C.C.No.124 of 2020 and the 4 issues involved in both civil and criminal case are one and the same. He would also submit that if the defendants filed written statement, it would cause prejudice to their defense in the criminal case. He would submit that trial Court failed to take note of this fact and prayed to set aside the order of the trial Court.
8. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether pendency of criminal case, bars civil Court to proceed with suit?
9. Defendants filed application under Section 10 of CPC to stay the proceedings in suit O.S.No.234 of 2020. For better appreciation, Section 10 of CPC is extracted hereunder:
"Section 10 - Stay of suit - No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in 1[India] having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of 1[India] established or continued by 2[the Central Government] 3[***] and having like jurisdiction, or before 4[the Supreme Court].
Explanation.-The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in 1[India] from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action."5
10. A plain reading of Section 10 of CPC makes it clear that the subject matter in earlier suit and subsequent suit must be identical and the suits must be between same parties. In such cases Section 10 of CPC would apply to the subsequent suit and the subsequent suit will be stayed till the disposal of earlier suit.
11. In Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that -
25. It does not lay down that a judgment of the criminal court would be admissible in the civil court for its relevance is limited. {See Seth Ramdayal Jat Vs. Laxmi Prasad (supra). The judgment of a criminal court in a civil proceeding will only have limited application, viz., inter alia, for the purpose as to who was the accused and what was the result of the criminal proceedings.
26. Any finding in a criminal proceeding by no stretch of imagination would be binding in a civil proceeding."
12. In Kishan Singh (Dead) Through LRs. Vs. Gurpal Singh and Ors.2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that -
"19. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallized to the effect that the findings of fact recorded by the Civil Court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases.1
(2009) 13 SCC 729 2 (2010) 8 SCC 775 6 In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal cases it is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of Sections 41 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 dealing with the relevance of previous Judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration."
13. Appreciation of evidence in criminal case and civil proceedings is totally on different pedestals. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal cases proof beyond reasonable doubt. Trial Court, in fact, observed that no piece of document was filed before the Court regarding pendency of criminal case before the XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam. However, along with revision, copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.124 of 2020 was filed. In the charge sheet, plaintiff is the defacto complainant and a perusal of the charge sheet would indicate that on 28.02.2019 defendants trespassed into her site, cut away trees and pushed the complainant (plaintiff) and the police filed charge sheet for the offences under Section 447, 427, 323 r/w 34 of IPC.
7
14. In the plaint, it was asserted title to property and defendants' trying to interfere with the possession. Plaint was presented on 15.10.2020. The incident mentioned in C.C.No.124 of 2020 has no bearing in the civil proceedings. Section 10 of CPC would not apply to the facts of the case. The petitioner failed to prove that other suit with the same cause of action is pending. In view of authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court that there is no statutory or legal principle that the findings recorded by Court either on civil or criminal are binding on the parties, while dealing with the same subject matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial Court.
15. The scope of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and Ors.3. The order of the lower is neither perverse nor amounts to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested with it. Hence, the order of the trial Court dismissing the petition does not call for 3 (2003) 6 SCC 675 8 interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J 16th November, 2022 PVD