The main legal point established in the judgment is that a civil court has no jurisdiction to stay criminal proceedings and that the balance of convenience is a crucial factor in granting injunctions.

JUDGMENT

1. This case raises an important question of principle, namely, whether the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta cannot be restrained by injunction by a civil Court from proceeding with a certain criminal prosecution instituted by them against the respondents u/s 84, Calcutta Port Act (Act 3 of 1890 B.C.) for contravention by the respondents of the provisions of Section 83 of the said Act.

2. The facts, shortly stated, are as follows : The plaintiffs who are the respondents before us are the lessees of certain lands on the west side of the river Hooghly near Ghuseri. They started construction of a jute mill on a portion of the sairl lands and it appears that during the construction of the mill they put up am earthen bund on the bank of the river nearest to their land to facilitate the landing of building materials intended for constructing the said mill. On or about 11th May 1927, the Port Commissioners wrote a letter to the plaintiffs enclosing a coloured plan depicting the bund which they stated to be an encroachment on the high-water mark of the river and directing its removal within a month, failing which action was to be taken under Sections 83 and 84, Calcutta Port Act. The plaintiffs took no notice of this letter till 20th June and then started a correspondence into the details of which it is unnecessary to enter. On 16th August 1927, the Port Commissioners instituted a complaint against the plaintiffs before the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, he being the authority before whom complaints relating to offences committed within the limits of the port of Calcutta could be brought. On 18th August 1927 the present suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was instituted by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Howrah praying inter alia that it might be declared that the bund in question was erected on the plaintiffs' lands and it was not an encroachment on the high-water mark of the river Hooghly and that the Port Commissioners might be permanently restrained from interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs' possession of the said bund and from taking any steps whatsoever in any criminal Court in respect of the said alleged encroachment. In their written statement which was filed on or about 20th September 1927, the Port Commissioners stated that the bund in question had been erected on the foreshore of the river below the high-water mark, the bund going in time of flow under the high-water mark, that the land on which the said bund had been erected formed part of the foreshore of the river and that it was really an attempt on the part of the plaintiffs to carve out for their own purposes a portion of the foreshore. The Port Commissioners contended that in the circumstances they were entitled to have the bund removed and to institute proper proceedings in a proper Court, to wit, the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, against the plaintiffs and that no injunction could be issued under the law for restraining them in manner referred to in the plaint. On 2nd November 1927 the plaintiffs applied before the Subordinate Judge of Howrah for a temporary injunction against the Port Commissioners in terms of the prayer in the plaint. They alleged that there was a bona fide dispute between the parties as to the location of the high-water mark of the river Hughly and that in the event of the Port Commissioners being allowed to remove the said bund before the determination of the suit, they would suffer irreparable loss and damage. The Port Commissioners, in opposing the said application, pointed out that the plaintiffs had applied, after the institution of the said criminal proceedings, to this Court in its criminal revisional jurisdiction for stay thereof and that such application had been refused by this Court. They further pointed out that if the proceedings in the criminal Court were not proceeded with and the bund removed, there would be danger to navigation with the furthe