A suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-respondent to handover possession of land measuring 13 kanals 17 marlas forming part of Khasra No. 186 situate in village Nowabad, Jammu, is pending disposal in the court and Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu. The respondent moved an application before the trail court, under Sec. 151 C. P. C., to the effect that proceedings of the case be stayed till the decision of a criminal case pending against him under Sec. 477. R. P C. in regard to the said land. The trail court accepted the application of the defendant and stayed the proceedings of the present case holding that the continuance of the proceedings would embarrass and prejudice him in effectively contesting the criminal case. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff-petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The point for determination in this case is as to whether the civil proceedings should be stayed where criminal proceedings in regard to the same subject matter are pending. This question came up for consideration in case M. S. Sharief and Anr. Versus State of Madras AIR 1954 S C 397 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court, held as under: -

"As between the civil and the criminal proceedings, we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal Courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other, of even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment.

3. Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interest demands that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind; that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust.

4. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just For example, the civil case or the other criminal proceedings may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a prosecution ordered under S. 476. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished."

The only relevant consideration while disposing of the prayer for staying a civil suit pending disposal of a criminal case started on the same facts, is likelihood of embarrassment and each case is to be decided on his own merits considering the basic fact that whether the continuance of Civil proceedings would embarrass the party in criminal proceedings. In the present case, the respondent has been challaned for the commission of tresspass in regard to the said land for which eviction proceedings are pending in the Civil court. According to the respondent he would have embarrassment in case he would be asked to disclose his defence in the civil case. The trial court has taken into consideration this fact while allowing the application of the respondent. It has now been pointed out that the criminal case instituted against the respondents has since been decided. In view of this fact, no further finding is required to be given in this case in regard to stay of the proceedings.

5. The revision is, therefore, disposed of with the direction that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document