JUDGMENT : 1. Parties through their counsel. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 12-11-2014 passed in Civil Suit No. 37-A/2014 by the III Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Shajapur. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioners have filed a civil suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 37-A/2014 before the III Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Shajapur for declaration, mandatory injunction, possession and mesne profit. The plaintiffs have purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 31-03-2011 from respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. It is stated in the present writ petition that the respondent No. 5 has filed some complaint against the vendor of the property along with the present petitioners, alleging commencement of offence u/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 475, 34 of IPC and the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint and the proceedings are going on in criminal case ST No. 316/2013 and which is pending in Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur. In Civil case i.e. Civil Suit No. 37-A/2014, an application was preferred u/S. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the trial court has stayed the proceedings of the suit. The basic question before this court is whether on account of pendency of criminal case, a civil suit can be stayed or not? Sec. 10 and Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as under: "Section 10: Stay of suit-No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same tide where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court. Explanation - The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action. Explanation - The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action. Section 151 : Saving of inherent powers of Court - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court." 3. The aforesaid statutory provision of law makes it very clear that the statute does not provide for stay of civil suit on account of pendency of a criminal case. The trial court based upon the judgment delivered in the case of M.S. Sheriff and another v/s. State of Madras and others, reported in AIR 1954 SC 397 has passed the impugned order. 4. This court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment. The paragraphs 15 and 16 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: "15. As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule ban be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment. 16. Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things glide till memories have grown too dim to trust. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things glide till memories have grown too dim to trust. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. For example, the civil case or the other criminal proceeding may be so hear its end (sic) as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a prosecution order of under Sec. 476. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished." 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, this court is of the opinion that the civil suit cannot be stayed only because a criminal case is also pending. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case this court does not find any reason to stay the civil suit specially in light of Sec. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guru Granth Saheb Sthan Meerghat Vanaras v/s. Ved Prakash and others reported in (2013) 7 SCC 622 : AIR 2013 SC 2024 ) in paragraphs 7, 8, 18 and 19 has held as under:- "7. A Constitution Bench of this Court in M.S. Sheriff & Anr. v/s. State of Madras & Ors., ( AIR 1954 SC 397 ) has considered the question of simultaneous prosecution of the criminal proceedings with the civil suit. In paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 (pg. 399) of the Report, this Court stated as follows: "14.........It was said that the simultaneous prosecution of these matters will embarrass the accused.....but we can see that the simultaneous prosecution of the present criminal proceedings out of which this appeal arises and the civil suits will embarrass the accused. We have therefore to determine which should be stayed. 15. As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal Courts is a relevant consideration. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal Courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment. 16. Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. For example, the civil case or the other criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a prosecution ordered under S. 476. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished." 8. The ratio of the decision in M.S. Sheriff is that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to which of the proceedings-civil or criminal-must be stayed. It was held that possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts cannot be considered as a relevant consideration for stay of the proceedings as law envisaged such an eventuality. Embarrassment was considered to be a relevant aspect and having regard to certain factors, this Court found expedient in M.S. Sheriff to stay the civil proceedings. The Court made it very clear that this, however, was not hard and fast rule; special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. Embarrassment was considered to be a relevant aspect and having regard to certain factors, this Court found expedient in M.S. Sheriff to stay the civil proceedings. The Court made it very clear that this, however, was not hard and fast rule; special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. M.S. Sheriff does not lay down an invariable rule that simultaneous prosecution of criminal proceedings and civil suit will embarrass the accused or that invariably the proceedings in the civil suit should be stayed until disposal of criminal case. 18. In light of the above legal position, it may be immediately observed that the High Court was not at all justified in staying the proceedings in the civil suit till the decision of criminal case. Firstly, because even if there is possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal 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 herein) as they had already filed the written statement in the civil suit and based on 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 defences of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the criminal proceedings. 19. For the above reasons, appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.11.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is set aside. The proceedings in the civil suit shall now proceed further in accordance with law. The parties shall bear their own costs." Certified copy as per rules. In light of the aforesaid, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 12-11-2014 is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to proceed ahead with the trial of the suit.