SERVANTS OF PEOPLES SOCIETY … Vs. PYARIMOHAN MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who were defendants in the Court below, have filed this Writ Petition with the prayer for stay of further proceedings in C.S. (Ill) No. 173 of 2005 pending before the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar, till disposal of I.C.C. No. 2855 of 2005 in the file of the Learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar and for permitting them not to file their written statement in the above suit till disposal of the ICC Case.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are that, the opposite party, who is a member of Rajya Sabha, filed a suit in the Court of the Learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar, making a claim of Rupees one crore as damage and other reliefs as against publication of some News item in 'The Samaj' making certain false, fictitious and fabricated allegations against him and simultaneously, he also filed a complaint petition in the Court of the Learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar under Section 465, 469, 479, 500, 502 read with Section 34, IPC for the selfsame cause of action. The facts and narrations in both the civil suit and the criminal case are same except seeking separate reliefs in both the matters. The defence in both the cases is hundred percent same and the present petitioners are to advance common defence in both the proceedings. Both the suit as well as the complain petition are fully parallel and based on common documents and if the defendants (petitioners herein) will submit their written statement, then they shall have to disclose their defence in the criminal proceeding which will ultimately be prejudicial to the defendants in making their stand in that case.

(3.) IN support of his contention Learned Counsel has relied upon the decision in the case of Chagala Kumar Panigrahi and Ors. v. Smt. Ujjal Senapati and Ors. reported in 1998 (1) OLR 273 as well as an interim order dated 16.9.2005 passed in WP(C) No. 10592 of 2005 and Misc. Case No. 10609 of 2005, wherein the petitioner prayed for stay of a proceeding pending before the Press Council and a Division Bench of this Court had directed that as an interim measure, if the proceeding has not been concluded in the meantime, the same shall remain stayed. During the course of hearing of the matter on admission, Mr. Ratho, Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that even though the case is being taken of for admission, a reasoned order be passed and in case an adverse view is taken in the matter, the case may be referred to a larger bench keeping in view the decision of this Court in the case of Chagala Kumar Panigrahi and others (supra).