The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 21/99 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Koyilandy are the revision petitioners. The order dated 5-7-2000 in I.A. 984/2000 is under challenge. The petition is filed by defendants 1 to 4 under Section 151 of the C.P.C. to stay the suit till the disposal of the criminal case in C.C.No. 553/99 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Koyilandy against them and others.

2. The learned Munsiff after finding that the criminal case is pending against the same defendants on the same subject-matter in the suit and therefore, if the trial in the suit is proceeded with necessarily the defendants will be compelled and constrained to disclose their defence prematurely which will naturally prejudice them in the trial of the criminal case and therefore, it is not advisable to proceed with the suit pending trial of the criminal case. Hence the revision petition is preferred by the plaintiffs before this Court.

3. It is the common case that the subject-matter in the above suit and in the criminal case in which some of the defendants in the suit are facing trial before the Judicial First Class Magsitrate's Court, Koyilandy for the offences punishable under Section 83(c) of the Registration Act and Sections 465, 467, 468, 205 and 419 r/w 34 of I.P.C., are the same. The respondents 1 to 4 herein moved the above application to stay the trial of the suit till the disposal of the criminal case pending against them contending that the trial of the civil suit will prejudice their defence in the criminal case since they will be forced to disclose their defence in the criminal case prematurely, if they are forced to stand trial in the suit before the disposal of the criminal case.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the revision petitioners that respondents 1 to 4 have already filed their written statement in the suit and it is only thereafter they have filed the above petition to stay the trial of the suit till the disposal of the criminal case. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the contention of respondents 1 to 4 that the trial of the suit will prejudice their defence in the criminal case as they will have to prematurely disclose their defence in the suit, is absolutely untenable since they have raised all their contentions available in the suit in the written statement while the criminal case was pending against them and there is no question of any prejudice causing to them by the trial of the civil suit. Therefore, according to them, the lower Court has committed manifest error of law and jurisdiction in staying the civil suit pending trial of the criminal case pending against them.

5. The counsel for the respondents submitted that the findings of the civil Court will be binding upon the criminal Court, if the suit is disposed of before the disposal of the criminal case. It is also submitted that the trial of the civil suit will take long time and the criminal case has to be disposed of expeditiously while the events and the facts and circumstances which led to the criminal case are fresh in the minds of the witnesses. Therefore, according to him, apart from the possibility of conflicting decisions by the civil and criminal Courts, there is likelihood of embarrassment to the accused, if the trial in the civil suit is proceeded with before the disposal of the criminal case. Therefore, the counsel for the respondents submitted that it is only in the interests of justice to stay the civil suit till the disposal of the criminal case arising out of the very same set of facts.

6. The counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M. S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397 in support of the contention that the civil suit should be stayed till the disposal of the criminal case arising out of the same subject-matter. In that judgment the Supreme Court has observed as follows :

"(15) As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the