IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).No. 2144 of 2011(O) -------------------------------- OS.24/2009 of MUNI-MAGISTRATE COURT,PATTAMBI .................... PETITIONER: ---------------- 1. VIJU, S/O.NARAYANAN, PUNCHAYIL, KOTHACHIRA AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. SURESH BABU, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KUNDIL, KUDALLUR AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. HARIDASAN, S/O.KESAVAN, KODAVAN PARAMBIL, KOTHACHIRA AMSOM DESOM, KOTHACHIRA P.O.- 679535, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. RAJESH ALIAS RAJAN, S/O.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, CHAKKUM KUMARATH HOUSE, KOTHACHIRA AMSOM DESOM, KOTHACHIRA P.O.-679535, OTTAPALAM TALUK. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs O.P.(C). NO.2144/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S. NO.24/09 DATED 27/01/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PATTAMBI. P2: COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 22/07/2009 FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3 IN O.S.NO.24/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF - MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PATTAMBI. P3: COPY OF AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN AS I.A. NO.701/11 DATED 07/06/2011 IN O.S.NO.24/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF - MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PATTAMBI. P4: COPY OF ORDER DATED 27/06/2011 IN I.A.NO.701/11 IN O.S.NO.24/2009 OF THE MUNSIFF - MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PATTAMBI RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.2144 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Defendants in O.S.No.24 of 2009 of the Court of learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Pattambi are the petitioners before me challenging Ext.P4, order dated 27.06.2011 to the extent it concerns I.A.No.701 of 2011 filed by petitioners. Petitioners wanted stay of trial of the suit filed by the respondents for recovery of damages from petitioners for allegedly causing grievous hurt to them. Petitioners requested learned Munsiff- Magistrate to stay trial of the suit on the ground that since a criminal case in the matter is pending consideration before the same Court, if the Court proceeds with trial of the suit, petitioners will be compelled to disclose their defence and that will embarrass them in the trial of the criminal case. Learned Munsiff-Magistrate refused to grant stay. It is contended by learned counsel that having regard to the circumstances stated and in the light of the decision in M.S Sheriff Vs. State of Madras (AIR 1954 SC 397) learned Munsiff-Magistrate ought to have granted stay. It is pointed out by learned counsel that same Court sitting on the civil and criminal side is to decide the O.P(C)..No.2144 of 2011 -: 2 :- same issue in the two cases. 2. There could be no hard and fast rule as to whether, when in respect of the same matter a criminal case and civil case are pending, the one or the other should be stayed. It depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. The decision in one case is not binding in the other case. In the present case petitioners have already filed a written statement taking up and disclosing their defence. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalyan Sundaram Industries Limited (1996(2) KLT SN No.11(Page No.15)) the Supreme Court held that the mere fact that a criminal case is pending is no ground to stay trial of the civil case. Since petitioners have already filed written statement disclosing their defence, no question of their being prejudiced in the criminal case on account of trial of the civil case arises. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to think that the trial of the civil case should be stayed. There is little reason to interfere with the dismissal of I.A.No.701 of 2011. But I make it clear that learned Munsiff- Magistrate while acting on the civil side and criminal side has certainly to dispose of the respective cases based on the O.P(C)..No.2144 of 2011 -: 3 :- materials collected in the respective cases and uninfluenced by the evidence that may be recorded in the other case. With the above direction this original petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-