The petition sought a stay on a civil money suit pending the outcome of a criminal revision petition filed by the opposite party. The court held that since the opposite party (accused) was acquitted, no prejudice arose, and the petition was dismissed.
Petition for stay of civil suit proceedings dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
C.M.P. No.1009 of 2018
In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
----------Jainul Khan …. Petitioner Versus Sk. Rahim @ Sk. Abdul Rahim …. Opposite Party
For Petitioner … Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, Advocate.
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.RATH
Date of hearing and judgment : 07.01.2019
Dr. A.K.Rath, J This petition seeks to lacinate the order dated 2.5.2018, passed by the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kendrapara, in Money Suit No.24 of 2017, whereby and whereunder, learned trial Judge rejected the application of the petitioner for stay of further proceeding of the suit till disposal of CRLLP No.72 of 2017, pending before this Court.
2. Since the dispute lies in a very narrow compass, facts need not be recounted in details. Suffice it to say that plaintiffopposite party instituted a money suit for damages on the ground that petitioner lodged I.C.C. No.129 of 2007 (Trial No.158 of 2013)
2
under Sections 392/504/506 I.P.C., before the learned J.M.F.C., Kendrapara against him. In the petition, it was stated that he was a thief and anti-social person. He was acquitted. He suffered ignominy. His image was tarnished in society. The defendantpetitioner entered appearance and filed a petition to stay the further proceeding of the suit till disposal of CRLLP No.72 of 2017. Learned trial court rejected the same.
3. Heard Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the opposite party inspite of valid service of notice.
4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order of acquittal, the complainant preferred CRLLP No.72 of 2017 before this Court. Since there was delay in filing the petition, notice was issued on the question of limitation to the opposite party. In the event, the further proceeding of the suit is not stayed, the petitioner shall be seriously prejudiced.
5. The submission of Mr. Mohanty is difficult to fathom. In M.S. Sheriff and another Vs. State of Madras and others , AIR 1954 SC 397 (Vol.41 C.N. 95), the apex Court held :
3
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 the court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment.
It was further held that simultaneous prosecution of the present case, i.e. the criminal proceeding and civil suit will embarrass the petitioner and the civil suit should be stayed till the criminal proceeding is finished.
6. In the instant case, the opposite party was the accused in the complaint case. He was acquitted in the case. The petitioner
will not be prejudiced in any way. Thus the question of stay of further proceeding of the suit does not arise.
4
7. In the wake of the aforesaid, the petition sans merit,
deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.
DR. A.K.RATH, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated 7th January, 2019/Uks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil suit for damages should be stayed pending the disposal of the criminal revision petition filed by the opposite party.
Whether the possibility of conflicting decisions between the civil and criminal courts warrants a stay of civil proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.S. Sheriff and another Vs. State of Madras and othersReferred¶15
M.S. Sheriff and another Vs. State of Madras and others, AIR 1954 SC 397 · Who else cites this
Jainul Khan
Sk. Rahim
A.K.RATH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
