Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagwat Singh And Anr. vs Ram Prasad And Anr. on 15 November, 2006
Equivalent citations: AIR 2007 (NOC) 349 (M. P.)
ORDER Subhash Samvatsar, J.
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner who is defendant in Civil Suit No. 40-A/04 in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mungolli, District Ashok Nagar challenging order (Annexure P-1), dated 21-4-06.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent in the present case has filed a civil suit against the defendant in respect of agricultural land bearing survey No. 21 and 22 situated in Village Chevlai, Tehsil Mungawali. After service of notice of the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC. The present petitioner has filed an application under Section 10 read with Section 151, CPC for stay of the civil suit till the pendency of a Criminal Case No. 6/05, which is pending against the present petitioner for commission of offence under Sections 294, 379, IPC.
3. Contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as a criminal case in respect of the same land or disputed property is pending before the Criminal Court. Hence, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in case of M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras , the suit be stayed. This application is rejected by the Trial Court hence this petition is filed by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. The first contention raised by the Counsel for the petitioner is that the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in case of M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras (supra), is a judgment by 5 Judges Bench and therefore, it is binding on all the Courts till a contrary view is expressed by a High Bench. There is no dispute about the proposition. However, from the perusal of the said judgment, it is clear that the Supreme Court in that case has clearly observed that in peculiar facts of a particular case, the civil proceedings can be stayed if the Court is convinced that the submission of the defence is likely to cause some prejudice to the defence of the defendants which he is likely to take in the criminal matter. In that case, the Supreme Court was required to consider a case where two persons filed a civil suit for recovery of damages. It was contended by them that they were illegally detained by two Sub Inspectors of Police, the Police Inspectors made a statements in proceedings under Section 491, Cr.PC that these persons were not in their custody. As there was a factual dispute, the High Court in that case directed the District Judge to make an enquiry. After the enquiry report was submitted before the High Court, the High Court reached to the conclusion that the petitioners were telling truth and not the Sub-Inspectors. The High Court also found that after the illegal detention of the said petitioners, the petitioners were regularly arrested after their petitions and before the High Court's order.
5. On these set of facts, the High Court directed the Deputy Registrar to make a complaint against the said Sub- Inspectors. The said petitioners thereafter, filed two civil suits for damages for wrongful confinement. Two criminal prosecutions under Section 344, IPC for wrongful confinement, one against each Sub-Inspectors were also filed. It was contended before the Supreme Court that the simultaneous prosecution of the same matters was likely to embarrass the accused, though it was brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that during the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court two criminal prosecutions were closed with liberty to file fresh complaints. The Supreme Court, however, found it fit to decide as to which proceedings requires to be stayed. The Supreme Court observed that between the civil and the criminal proceedings, the criminal matters should be given precedence. The Supreme Court further observed that on the one hand no hard and fast rule can be laid down in their matter and was of the opinion that it was not required to be considered not it would be relevant consideration that there was possibility of conflicting decisions in the Civil and Criminal Courts. Considering these facts and circumstances the Apex Court has stayed the civil proceedings in that case. But, while staying the suit it was observed that there is no hard and fast rule in the matter.
6. this Court has considered the judgment of Apex Court referred above in his decision in case of Sai Udyog (Pvt.) Ltd., Raipur and Ors. v. Central Bank of India, Raipur AIR 1998 MP 191, and held that the Apex Court has not laid down any hard and fast rule and the question whether to stay the suit or not is a question is to be decided. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case and in that case as held that it is not necessary for the Court to stay the civil suit. Similar, view is taken by this Court in case of State Bank of Indore v. Abdul Razzak, 1997 (2) MPWN 201, Sheetal K. Bandi v. Rishi Shaik 1998 (2) MPLJ-SN 6, Central Bank of India v. Mis. Nemichand Harilal Jain and Ors. 1997(1) JLJ 120 and by the Apex Court in case of State of Rajasthan v. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries . In case of State of Rajasthan v. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries (supra), the Supreme Court has set aside the order of the High Court staying the civil suit, which was passed on the ground that criminal case in respect of some cause of action is pending. After perusing this judgment, it is clear that as a hard and fast principle of law, it cannot be laid down that whenever a criminal case is instituted, then civil suit on the same cause of action must be stayed. The Court may be guided by the attending circumstances. Where a criminal action provides a cause of action for the civil action, then Court may if the facts so demand stay proceedings in the civil suit. There is no implement in proceedings that the civil suit on the ground of pendency of a criminal case is stayed unless and until serious prejudice is caused to his defence in a criminal matter.
7. In the present case, the Trial Court found that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if the proceedings of the civil suit are not stayed. In such circumstances, this Court cannot interfere in the matter in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this petition is without any merit. Hence, dismissed.
8. Petition stand dismissed.