ORDER : S.C. Sharma, J. Parties through his counsel. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 18-10-2014 and the order dated 26-11-2014 (Annexure-P/6 and P/8) passed in Civil Suit No. 55-A/2014 by the learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Khategaon, Dist - Dewas. The facts of the case reveals that respondent No. 1 has filed a civil suit for declaration, possession and mesne profit. It has been further stated that an agreement to sale was executed by respondent No. 1 in respect of the land initially. The sale-deed was executed for a part of the land later on. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has not executed the second sale-deed at all for the remaining part of the land and his signatures are not in existence in respect of the second sale deed. Based upon the aforesaid contentions, he has filed a civil suit for declaration for declaring the second sale-deed as null and void. It is also pertinent to note that at the same time, he has filed an application by invoking the provisions as contained under the Code of Civil Procedure. The complaint has also been registered and a criminal case is also pending. Before the trial Court, where the criminal case is pending, a report of hand writing expert was produced on record in respect of the second sale-deed, and thereafter, an application was preferred in the civil suit by the present petitioner who is a defendant for staying the trial of the civil suit. The trial Court has rejected the application on 18-10-2014. Thereafter, another application was preferred by the petitioner who is a defendant for staying the examination of the hand-writing expert before the trial Court and the trial Court has rejected that application also. The petitioner is aggrieved by both the orders. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case M.S. Sheriff Vs. The State of Madras and Others, AIR 1954 SC 397 . He has also placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Ved Prakash and Others Vs. Guru Granth Saheb Sthan and Another, AIR 2009 MP 134 and his contention is that the trial Court should have been stayed the trial of the civil suit on an application preferred under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. Guru Granth Saheb Sthan and Another, AIR 2009 MP 134 and his contention is that the trial Court should have been stayed the trial of the civil suit on an application preferred under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel to the other side has argued before this Court that the question of staying the trial of the civil suit does not arise and before the civil suit, a declaration has been sought for setting aside the sale-deed, whereas in the criminal case, whether the petitioner has committed any crime or not, has to be looked into. 4. This Court has carefully gone through the judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.S. Sheriff and another (supra). Paragraphs No. 14 and 16 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: "14. We were informed at the hearing that two further sets of proceedings arising out of the same facts are now, pending against the appellants. One is two civil suits for damages for wrongful confinement. The other is two criminal prosecutions under section 344, Indian Penal Code, for wrongful confinement, one against each Sub-Inspector. It was said that the simultaneous prosecution of these, matters will embarrass the accused. But after the hearing of the appeal we received information that the two criminal prosecutions have been closed with liberty to file fresh complaints when the papers are ready, as the High Court records were not available on the application of the accused. As these prosecutions are not pending at the moment, the objection regarding them does not arise 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. 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. 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. 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 as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a prosecution order of under section 476. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished." 5. This Court has also carefully gone through the judgment delivered in the case of Vedprakash (supra) and para No. 6 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: "6. The judgment of M.S. Sheriff is fully applicable in the present case The petitioners who have set up their case on the basis of Will in respect of which the plaintiff has made allegation that it is a forged and fabricated and in that regard criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioners, in our considered opinion, the proceedings in Civil Suit deserve to be stayed. At this stage, Shri Ojha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the plaintiff's evidence has already commenced and if at this stage, the proceedings in civil suit are stayed, it shall cause serious prejudice to the plaintiff. It is submitted by him that even if the proceedings are to be stayed, then the plaintiff should be permitted to conclude its evidence and thereafter, after the decision in criminal case, the defendants may commence their evidence Though the aforesaid contention appears to be just and proper, but in view of the specific mandate in the case of M.S. Sheriff (supra), we are unable to accept the aforesaid contention. The Apex Court has very specifically held that in such situation, the proceedings of civil suit should be stayed. This petition is accordingly allowed. The Apex Court has very specifically held that in such situation, the proceedings of civil suit should be stayed. This petition is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the 1st Additional District Judge to the Court of Additional Judge, Panna dated 21-4-2008 in Civil Suit No. 10-A/2006 is hereby set aside and it is directed that in the decision of criminal case, the proceedings in Civil Suit No. 10-A/2006 shall remain stayed." 6. The matter relating to Vedprakash (supra) has travelled upto the Hon'ble Apex Court and the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court has been set aside by Hon'ble Apex Court and the same is reported in Guru Granth Saheb Sthan Meerghat Vanaras Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors, AIR 2013 SC 2024 Paragraphs No. 7, 8, 17, 18 and 19 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: "7. A Constitution Bench of this Court in M.S. Sheriff and anr. v. State of Madras and ors. [1] 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. 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 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 section 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 At. 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. At. 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. 17. At. 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. 17. In K.G. Premshanker, the effect of the above provisions (sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act) has been broadly noted thus : (SCC p.97, para 30) "if the criminal case and civil proceedings are for the same cause, judgment of the civil Court would be relevant if conditions of any of sections 40 to 43 are satisfied but it cannot be said that the same would be conclusive except as provided in section 41 . Section 41 provides which judgment would be conclusive proof of what is stated therein." Moreover, the judgment, order or decree passed in previous civil proceedings, if relevant, as provided under sections 40 and 42 or other provisions of the Evidence Act then in each case the Court has to decide to what extent it is binding or conclusive with regard to the matters decided therein. In each and every case the first question which would require consideration is whether judgment, order or decree is relevant; if relevant, its effect. This would depend upon the facts of each 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 defence(s) 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. 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." 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the question of staying the trial of the civil suit or the question of deferring the examination of the witness does not arise. Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: "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 title 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 the 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." It certainly provides for staying of trial of any suit, in which, the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit or in those cases, where the civil suit is pending, involving almost the same dispute. The aforesaid statutory provision of law does not include the word "criminal case" at all, and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, pendency of criminal case will not entitle a litigant to file an application under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for staying of trial of a civil suit, and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court was justified in passing of the order dated 18-10-2014. The trial Court was also justified in passing of the subsequent order dated 26-11-2014, as it would have been also resulted in staying of the trial of the civil suit upto some extent i.e. so far as examination of the particular witness is concerned. Resultantly, no case for interference is made out in the matter. The trial Court was also justified in passing of the subsequent order dated 26-11-2014, as it would have been also resulted in staying of the trial of the civil suit upto some extent i.e. so far as examination of the particular witness is concerned. Resultantly, no case for interference is made out in the matter. The present writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. C.c. as per rules.