IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5759 of 2009 Between: Ramoji Rao & 2 others .. Petitioners AND A. Veera Malleswar & 4 others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5759 of 2009 ORDER: Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted on instructions that he is not pressing the Civil Revision Petition against respondents 3 and 4 who are his co-defendants in the suit. 2. The respondents 1, 2 and 5 were served with notices of the revision, but they did not enter appearance. 3. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.1278 of 2009 in O.S.No.142 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bhongir, dated 28.10.2009, dismissing an application under Sections 10 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to stay further proceedings in the suit till the disposal of C.C.No.38 of 2006, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir. 4. The suit is for recovery of damages of Rs.3,00,000/- on the ground of defamation being committed by a publication of a news report in Eenadu Telugu Daily, dated 05.02.2006, which was also the subject of C.C.No.38 of 2006. The revision petitioners sought for a stay of the suit till the disposal of C.C.No.38 of 2006 on the ground of any advance disclosure of the details of the defence in the suit being likely to prejudice their defence in the criminal case. The trial Court firstly noted that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in terms, has no application and as the degree of evidence required in both the cases will be different and as even an acquittal in the criminal case will not be a ground for dismissal of the suit for damages, the civil suit of the year 2006 listed for disposal cannot be stayed. 5. The disposal of the petition in the suit led the defendants 1 to 3 to approach this Court with this revision claiming that Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, will squarely apply to the facts of the case which was not considered by the trial Court and in view of simultaneous prosecution of civil and criminal cases, it will be in the interest of justice to invoke the inherent jurisdiction to stay the civil suit. 6. Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, while reiterating the claims of the revision petitioners, relied on the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.5231 of 2008, dated 02.12.2008, which was also the basis for the interim stay granted by this Court while issuing notice before admission on 16.12.2009 in C.R.P.M.P.No.7895 of 2009. 7. The point for consideration is whether the trial Court failed to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to stay the suit in spite of the justification for the same? 8. In the order of C.R.P.No.5231 of 2008, dated 02.12.2008 also, the publication of a news item in the same newspaper led to the institution of a civil suit and a criminal case, more or less, under similar circumstances as herein. The learned Judge observed that though the suit was coming up for trial after the filing of the written statements and the settlement of the issues, the peculiar facts and circumstances deserve a direction to the Criminal Court to dispose of the criminal case within three months and in the meanwhile, postpone the commencement of trial in the civil suit. The learned Judge referred to M.S. SHARIFF VS. STATE OF MADRAS[1], in which the Apex Court observed that as between civil and criminal proceedings, the criminal matters should be given precedence and on the facts before the Apex Court in that case, the civil suits were directed to be stayed till the criminal proceedings were finished while observing that there is no hard and fast rule in this regard. The learned Judge also referred t o ARVIND KALIDAS WADODKAR VS. RAMDAS DEVIDAS JOSHI[2], as well as CH. RAMOJIRAO AND OTHERS VS. KHASPA APPALA NARASIMHAM AND OTHERS[3]. Similar principles were laid down in the said precedents also and in the last of the cases, both the civil and criminal cases were directed to be tried and disposed of simultaneously. 9. Keeping the above principles in view, it is seen that the trial of the civil suit has not yet commenced, while Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted on instructions that the trial in C.C.No.38 of 2006 has already commenced and the matter is part heard. The material papers enclosed to this Civil Revision Petition made it clear that the subject matter of the civil and criminal cases is one and the same. As noted by the trial Court in the impugned order, though Section 10 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908, in its express terms, has no application, it is well settled that invocation of inherent jurisdiction in such cases without any offence to the specific provisions of law is not barred. As the present case is on all fours identical to the cases covered by C.R.P.No.5231 of 2008, interests of justice would require adoption of a similar course of action. 10. Therefore, the Criminal Court can be requested to dispose of the criminal case on merits within a reasonable time till which time, the commencement of trial in the civil suit can stand postponed. 11. Accordingly, the order in I.A.No.1278 of 2009 in O.S.No.142 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bhongir, dated 28.10.2009, is set aside and the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, shall dispose of C.C.No.38 of 2006 on its file on merits in accordance with law, after giving every reasonable opportunity to both parties to adduce such oral and documentary evidence they may desire to produce, within six (6) months from the date of communication of this order and the trial in O.S.No.142 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bhongir, shall not be commenced till the disposal of C.C.No.38 of 2006 or till the expiry of six (6) months from the date of communication of this order, which ever is earlier. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is ordered. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 26th November, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5759 of 2009 Date: 26th November, 2010 KL [1] AIR 1954 SC 397 [2] 1997 (1) CCC 249 (BOM.) [3] C.R.P.No.2103 of 2005 decided on 02.02.2006