JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25th September, 2019, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC for staying the suit proceedings, has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a suit has been filed by the respondent-plaintiff in the Civil Court, wherein the prayer has been made not only to give possession of one property house but also to set aside the sale deed dated 28th May, 2008 by declaring it to be void and ineffective. Learned counsel submitted that further prayer has also been made in the suit that the power of attorney dated 19th February, 2008 may also be declared void and ineffective. 3. Learned counsel submitted that in respect of the same power of attorney, criminal proceedings have also been initiated by the plaintiff and as such, a criminal case has been registered in Police Station Pratap Nagar, Sanganer by way of lodging FIR bearing No.698/2011 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. 4. Learned counsel submitted that once, after investigation, the police had filed charge-sheet and criminal offence, as alleged to be committed by the petitioner is still under trial, continuation of the proceedings in the civil suit is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the findings of the Civil Court will cause great prejudice to the petitioner and will further embarrass him in respect of the same allegations, levelled at two places. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC and the Court below, without considering the relevant case-law, has decided the application in mechanical manner. 6. Learned counsel also submitted that the Apex Court in the case of M.S.Sheriff Vs. State of Madras, (1954) AIR SC 397 has laid down the law that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in respect of the criminal matter to be given precedence over the civil proceedings, however, the conflicting decisions in the Civil and Criminal Courts should be avoided, as a matter of prudence. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the Apex Court in the case of M.S.Sheriff (supra) finally stayed the proceedings of the civil suit till culmination of the proceedings in the criminal case. 8. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the Apex Court in the case of M.S.Sheriff (supra) finally stayed the proceedings of the civil suit till culmination of the proceedings in the criminal case. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case. 9. This Court finds that the Court below has rejected the application of the petitioner by holding that there is no provision in the Civil Procedure Code, which refrains the Civil Court to proceed and decide the civil suit only on account of a criminal case, registered in respect of the allegations, which are also a part of the civil proceedings. 10. This Court further finds that the only provision contained in the Civil Procedure Code for staying the proceedings of a civil suit is Section 10. The said section does not prohibit the Court to proceed in the civil proceedings even if the some criminal proceedings are launched by the parties concerned. 11. As regard to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Apex Court in the case of M.S.Sheriff (supra) has stayed the proceedings of the Civil Court till conclusion of the criminal case, this Court finds that the Apex Court in the said judgment itself has observed that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and further, possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal proceedings cannot be a relevant consideration. 12. A perusal of the prayer in the suit reflects that the plaintiff has not only prayed for possession of the property but also has sought alleged sale deed dated 28th May, 2008 to be declared void and ineffective. The prayer of declaring the power of attorney, to be obtained by fraud and to declare the same as null and void, cannot, in any way, affect the prayer sought by the plaintiff in respect of possession of the property, to be delivered to her and further, the sale deed can only be set aside by the competent Civil Court and in such matters, the Criminal Court cannot adjudicate that whether the sale deed is required to be declared valid or the same is required to be set aside. 13. Considering the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the Court below has not committed any error while passing the impugned order dated 25th September, 2019. 14. 13. Considering the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the Court below has not committed any error while passing the impugned order dated 25th September, 2019. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.