GURU GRANTH SAHEB STHAN MEERGHAT VANARAS versus VED PRAKASH AND ORS.

Citation: [2013] 5 S.C.R. 1042 · Decided: 01-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 5 S.C.R. 1042 
A 
GURU GRANTH SAHEB STHAN MEERGHAT VANARAS 
v. 
B 
VED PRAKASH AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4166 of 2013) 
MAY 1, 2013 
[R.M. LODHA AND SHARAD ARVIND BOBDE, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss.40 to 43 -
Simultaneous 
proceedings in Criminal as well as civil court between same 
C parties and in respect of same property -
Stay of the 
proceedings in civil court, during pendency of the trial - Held: 
Grant of stay was not correct - Even in case of conflicting 
decisions in civil and criminal courts, such an eventuality 
cannot be taken as a relevant consideration - In the facts of 
D the case also there is no likelihood of any embarrassment to 
defendants and the outcome of civil court will also not 
prejudice their defence in criminal case. 
Appellant filed FIR against respondent Nos. 1 to 4, 
alleging that they had executed a false, forged and 
E fabricated Will and on the basis thereof, obtained 
mutation order. While the trial was pending against the 
respondents, appellants filed civil suit against the 
respondents, praying for decree for declaration of title, 
perpetual injunction and possession in respect of 
F disputed lands above-mentioned. 
Respondents-defendants filed application for staying 
the proceedings in the suit, during pendency of the 
criminal trial. Trial Court dismissed the application. 
G Respondents-defendants when approached High Court, 
the Court stayed the proceedings in the suit. Hence, the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
1042 
GURU GRANTH SAHEB STHAN MEERGHAT 
1043 
VANARAS v. VED PRAKASH 
HELD: : 1. If the criminal case and civil proceedings 
A 
are for the same cause, judgment of the civil court would 
be relevant if conditions of any of Sections 40 to 43 of 
the Evidence Act are satisfied, but it cannot be said that 
the same would be conclusive except as provided in 
Section 41. Section 41 provides which judgment would 
B 
be conclusive proof of what is stated therein. Moreover, 
the judgment, order or decree passed in previous civil 
proceedings, if relevant, as provided under Sections 40 
and 42 or other provisions of the Evidence Act, then in 
each case, the court has to decide to what extent it is c 
binding or conclusive with regard to the matters decided 
therein. In each and every case, the first question which 
would require consideration is, whether judgment, order 
or decree is relevant; if relevant, its effect. This would 
depend upon the facts of each case. No hard and fast 0 
rule can be laid down and that possibility of conflicting 
decision in civil and criminal courts is not a relevant 
consideration. [Paras 14 and 19) [1049-F-G; 1051-0-G] 
K. G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police and Anr. (2002) 
s sec 87.: 2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 350 - relied on. 
E 
2. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in 
staying the proceedings in the civil suit till the decision 
F 
of criminal case. Firstly, because even if there is 
possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and crimi_nal 
courts, such an eventuality cannot be taken as a relevant 
consideration. Secondly, in the facts of the present case, 
there is no likelihood of any embarrassment to the 
defendants {respondent Nos. 1 to 4), as they had already 
filed the written statement in the civil suit and based on 
G 
the pleadings of the parties, the issues have been framed. 
In this view of the matter, the outcome and/or findings 
that may be arrived at by the civil court will not at all 
prejudice the defence{s) of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in . 
the criminal proceedings. [Para 20] [1051-H; 1052-A-C] 
H 
1044 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 5 S.C.R. 
A 
M.S. Sheriff and Anr. vs. State of Madras and Ors. AIR 
1954 SC 397: 1954 SCR 1229 - followed. 
Mis. Karam Chand Ganga Prasad and Anr. etc. vs. 
Union of India andOrs. 1970 (3) SCC 694; V.M. Shah vs. 
B State of Maharashtra and Anr. (1995) 5 SCC 767: 1995 (3) 
Suppl. SCR 79; State of Rajasthan vs. Kalyan Sundaram 
Cement Industries Ltd. and Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 87: 1996 (2) 
SCR 463 - referred to. 
c 
D 
E 
Case Law Reference: 
1910 (3) sec 694 
referred to 
1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 79 referred to 
1996 (2) SCR 463 
referred to 
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 350 relied on 
1954 SCR 1229 
followed 
Para 10 
Para 11 
Para 13 
Para 14 
Para14 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
4166 of 2013. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.11.2008 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh in Writ 
Petition No. 5836 of 2008. 
F 
Nagendra 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.