TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 736
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....97,000/- of the said amount. A suit for specific performance of the contract was filed as no deed of sale was executed in terms of the said agreement dated 28.03.2001. 3. During hearing of the said suit, a receipt was filed showing payment of a sum of Rs. 4,03,000/- to the appellant herein. The said receipt was marked as Exhibit A.15. On the said basis, allegedly, possession of the theatre was obtained by the respondent. The learned Trial Judge, however, dismissed the said suit by an order dated 29.04.2006 inter alia opining: "45. Therefore, in the circumstances I find that there is no evidence produced by the plaintiff which is sufficient to outweigh the opinion and the evidence of D.W.4. Further it is to be seen that though after execu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, in the circumstances it also shall be held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he came into possession of the plaint schedule property in pursuance of the part performance of the contract covered by Ex.A.4." It was furthermore opined: "Therefore, following this decision of the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh it shall be held that the plaintiff, since failed to prove that he paid Rs. 4,03,000/- towards part payment of sale consideration of D.W.1 and she delivered possession of plaint schedule to him on 18.09.2002 and passed Ex.A.15 receipt. It shall be held that though the time is not the essence of the contract and the plaintiff is justified in not making further remaining part of sale consideration by 31.12.2001, since....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) per month, commencing from June 2006, until further orders. It shall also be open to the respondent to withdraw the amount without furnishing any security." 6. Respondent filed Miscellaneous Petition in the said appeal, being ASMP No. 995 of 2006, for modification of the order dated 24.05.2006, which was allowed by an order dated 17.07.2006. 7. By another order dated 17.07.2006, the High Court stayed the proceedings in Crime No. 79 of 2006. 8. Appellant is, thus, before us. 9. Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15670 of 2006, would submit that the High Court committed a serious illegality in staying the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... trite that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be attracted where a forged document has been filed. It was so held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) stating: "25. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)( b )( ii ), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate where after commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in court, is capable of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh after preparing a forged document or committing an act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by himself or through someone set up by him and simply file the document in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g is too strong."" In regard to the possible conflict of findings between civil and criminal court, however, it was opined: "32. Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as to possession over the property or entitlement to possession would be determined by the civil court. The criminal proceedings have remained pending for about a decade. We do not find any propriety behind allowing these proceedings to continue in view of the parties having already approached the civil court. Whichever way proceedings under Section 145 CrPC may terminate, the order of the criminal court would always be subject to decision by the civil court. Inasmuch as the parties are already before the civil court, we deem it proper to let the civil suit be decided and therein appropriate interim order be passed taking care of the grievances of the parties by making such arrangement as may remain in operation during the hearing of the ci....