ARUN DUTT Vs. UPENDRA KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole defendant of a suit filed by the plaintiff Opposite Parties No. 1 to 6 for specific performance of contract, assails validity of an order dated the 10th June, 1993, of Shri B. P. Kashyap, Subordinate, Judge-1, Gaya, In Title Suit No. 160 of 1992, rejecting his prayer to stay further proceedings of the suit till completion of the investigation by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department (Fraud Section) Lal Bazar, Calcutta, in regard to his allegation of fraud on him and the forgery of the deed of Baibeyana (agreement of sale) dated 15-1-1991, on which the suit was filed, on his complaint before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Alipore, 24 Parganas (South), West Bengal.

(2.) The Court below has rejected the prayer holding that the Code of Civil Procedure (herinafter referred to as 'the Code' does not provide any provision to stay proceedings in a Civil Suit, if a criminal proceeding is pending outside the State and that the pendency of a criminal case is no bar to the continuance of further proceedings of the suit.

(3.) Mr. Rain Janam OJha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, strenuously urged relying upon several decisions--one Full Bench decision of our own Court, one decision of the Calcutta High Court and two decisions of the Apex Court, that the Court below has committed a jurisdictional error in refusing to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by virtue of Section 151 of the Code inasmuch as the complaint instituted by the petitioner and Ms defence taken in the suit are grounded on same facts; and that Section 151 of the Code begins where Section 10 of the Code ends and, accordingly. the impugned is liable to be set aside.