In support of his contention the learned counsel relies on the decision vs Before proceeding further, it will be apposite to reproduce the impugned

Heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents despite proper service of notice upon them. The revision is directed against the order dated 22.1.20091 passed by th 2. e learned Civil Judge, Jr. Civn. No. 1, Silchar refusing to stay Title Suit No. 159/2006 pending before him. The respondent No. 2 in this case is alleged to hav e executed the sale deed dated 19.7.2000 in favour of the petitioner. On the bas is of the sale deed allegedly executed by the respondent No. 3. the petitioner p resented the sale deed to the Sub-Registrar, Katigorah Cachar District for regis tration. When the respondent No. 2 refused to appear before the Sub-Registrar to admit the execution of the sale deed, summons was issued by the Sub-Registrar f or the appearance of the respondent No. 2 before him. The respondent No. 2 duly appeared before the Sub-Registrar but submitted an application dis-owning the e xecution of the sale deed by him. The application is at Annexure-3. This prompte d the petitioner to file an appeal u/s. 73 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 before the District Registrar, Cachar. The appeal is still pending before the Di strict Registrar for disposal. In the meantime, the respondent No. 1 instituted the said suit. The respondent no. 2 also filed a criminal complaint case against the petitioner for commission of offences punishable u/s. 120(B)/465/467/468/47 1/34 IPC. The petitioner having received the summons appeared before the learned SDJM, Sadar Silchar. It appears that at the desire of both the petitioner and t he respondent No. 2, the learned SDJM by the order dated 4.8.2006 in CR No. 2384 /2003 forwarded the disputed sale deed to the hand writing expert of FSL, Kahili para, Guwahati for comparision. In the meantime, the learned Munsiff proceeded w ith the trial of the suit. It may be noted at this stage that 3 (three) proceedi ngs between the same parties are now pending before different courts including a criminal court. The petitioner by his application dated 22.1.2009 approached th e learned Munsiff No. 1, Silchar u/s. 151 CPC for staying further proceeding of the said suit till disposal of C.R. 2384/2003 pending before the learned SDJM/ S adar Silchar. The application was, however, rejected by the learned Munsiff by t he impugned order. 3. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in th is revision petition is that the Trial Court has misdirected itself by holding t hat the trial court is not bound by the opinion of a criminal Court; the trial court ought to have taken into consideration the fact that as there are already 3 proceedings in respect of the same subject matter, multiplicity of litigation has to be avoided. In any case, according to the learned counsel, when the dispu ted signature is being examined by the FSL, which is yet to give its report cons idering the fact that the genuineness of the hand writing is also in question in the suit as well as in the proceeding before the District Registrar, though in different proceedings, the rejection of the application of the petitioner amount s to failure to exercise jurisdiction. He, therefore, seeks intervention of this court for setting aside the impugned order for avoiding multiplicity of proceed ings. 4. In support of his contention the learned counsel relies on the decision of the Apex Court in M.S. Sheriff and Another Vs. The State of Madrass and Ors. (AIR-1954 SC 397), Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. The State of U.P. (AIR 1985 SC 472, Jhummamal alias Devandas Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1988 SC 1973), CBI Vs . Duncans Agro Industries Ltd, Calcutta (AIR 1996 SC 2452), Amresh Tiwari Vs. La ta Prasad Dubey (AIR 2000 SC 1504) and K.G. Premshankar Vs. Inspector of Police and another (AIR 2002 SC 3372) to fortify his submissions. 5. Before proceeding further, it will be apposite to reproduce the impugned order, which is as under :- (cid:28)Both sides are represented. Plaintiff submitted examination-in-chief. Plaintiff also taken steps for issue of summons and deposited Rs. 100/- as cost of witness which is in the custody of Bench Asstt. The Asstt. Is directed to dis burse the cost to the witness on his appearing. The defendant vide petition No. 288/11 prayed to stay the instant/ contd./-on th e ground that there is a criminal case regarding the alleged sale deed and ld. C ourt of SDJM, sent the sale deed to Forensic Lab. This court is not binding upon the opinion of criminal court. What even opinion from by the ld. Criminal court , the defendant has the reject to adduce the same before this court as per law. I do not find any ground to stay the suit. Hence, the petition is rejected. (cid:29)

6. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the trial court was sway ed by the fact that the decisions of a criminal court is not binding upon a civi l court and that independently of the opinion of the criminal court, the defenda nt has always the right to adduce evidence before the court as per law. In my op inion, (1) the trial court has not properly applied its mind to the application of the petitioner. Here is a case in which 3 separate proceedings are already in existence, namely, (1) an appeal filed by the petitioner before the District Re gistrar concerning the refusal of the respondent No. 2 to admit the execution of the sale deed; (2) the pendency of a criminal proceeding initiated by the respo ndent No. 2 against the petitioner the subject matter whereof is more or less t he same in the civil suit instituted by the respondent No. 1 and (3) the suit fi led by the respondent No. 1 before the learned Munsiff is for declaring that the sale deed executed by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner is null and void. From the pleadings of the parties which are annexed to the revision pe tition, I have no doubt that the disputes involved in the 3 proceedings have ari sen out of the same transaction, namely, the genuineness of the signature of the respondent No. 2 in the sale deed in question. There is also no dispute, that t he disputed signature is yet to be examined by the FSL. As the three issues invo lved in the three proceedings are practically one and the same, simultaneous pro ceedings of the three cases will not be in the interest of either of the parti es. Under the circumstances, the application of the petitioner for staying the s uit pending receipt of the FSL report by the criminal court dealing with the cri minal proceeding in question ought to have been allowed. There is no question of a civil court being made subordinate to be a criminal court on the facts and ci rcumstances of this case. Multiplicity of litigation is to be avoided as far as possible in the interest of all the parties in the dispute. In my view, the tria l court has not properly applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the process has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law; the impugned order cannot, therefore, be sustained in law. 7. For the forgoing discussions, this revision succeeds. The impugned order dated 22.1.2009 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Silchar in Title Suit No. 159/2006 is hereby set aside. Resultantly, the further proceeding in the suit s hall remain stayed pending receipt of the report of the FSL, Kahilipara, Guwahat i concerning the disputed signature by the learned SDJM, Silchar. However, in th e facts and circumstances of the case I pass no order as to costs.