[2026:RJ-JP:14709] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27366/2018 Govind Narain Saini S/o Shri Babu Lal Saini, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Saini, R/o 3970, Near Tiwari Ji Ka Karkhana, Deenanath Ji Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1 M/s Empire Ceramix Private Limited, Through Its Direfctor Subhash Chand Saini, Registered Office Ploy No. 182, Rampath, Surya Nagar, Gopalpura Byepass, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Second R/o G-1-50, 51,60,61, Riico Industrial Area, Shahjahanpur, District Alwar 2 Subhash Chand Saini S/o Shri Panchu Lal Saini, Director M/s Empire Ceramix Pvt. Ltd., R/o F-43, Riico Industrial Area, Behror, District Alwar, Second R/o G-1-50, 51, 60, 61, Riico Industrial Area, Shahjahanpur, District Alwar, Third R/o Infront Of Bhartiya Public School, Narnaul Road, Jharod Post Makil, Behror, District Alwar. 3 Avinash Saini S/o Shri Subhash Chand Saini, Director M/s Empire Ceramix Pvt. Ltd., R/o F-43, Riico Industrial Area, Behror, District Alwar, Second R/o G-1-50, 51, 60, 61, Riico Industrial Area, Shahjahanpur, District Alwar 4 Panchu Lal Saini S/o Late Shri Shiv Sahay Saini, Director M/s Empire Ceramix Pvt. Ltd., R/o G-1-50, 51, 60, 61, Riico Industrial Area, Shahjahanpur, District Alwar, Second R/o Village Harsola, Near Police Chowki, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar 5 Shalendra Gupta, Director M/s Empire Ceramix Pvt. Ltd., R/o G-1-50, 51, 60, 61, Riico Industrial Area, Shahjahanpur, District Alwar, Second R/o C/o Hitkari Agencies, Azad Market, New Delhi, Third R/o C-121, Mahendu Enclave, G.t. Karnal Road, New Delhi 6 Tarun Garg, Director M/s Empire Ceramix Pvt. Ltd., R/o G- 1-50, 51, 60, 61, Riico Industrial Area, Shahjahanpur, District Alwar, Second R/o C/o Hitkari Agencies, Azad Market, New Delhi, Third R/o Dampier Nagar, Shanti Kunj, Mathura (Up) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Kishan Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitesh Rawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order Reportable 08/04/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 16.10.2018, passed by the learned Additional District and [2026:RJ-JP:14709] (2 of 10) [CW-27366/2018] Sessions Judge No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan, in Civil Suit No. 218/2011, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 10 CPC has been allowed and the proceedings in the suit have been stayed until the decision in the complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as well as the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 81/2019 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, under Sections 420, 406, 468, 469, 471, and 120-B IPC, pending before the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases No. 11), Jaipur Metropolitan. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had filed a suit for recovery of a certain amount which had been advanced to the defendant as a loan. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the defendant had issued a cheque towards repayment of the said loan amount; however, the cheque was dishonoured, whereupon proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, thereafter, in order to recover the loan amount and to avoid the bar of limitation, the petitioner instituted the present suit for recovery of the said amount. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said suit, the defendant filed an application under Section 10 CPC, praying that since criminal proceedings are pending, the proceedings of the present suit be stayed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below has stayed the proceedings of the suit under [2026:RJ-JP:14709] (3 of 10) [CW-27366/2018] Section 10 CPC merely on account of the pendency of criminal proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, as per the provisions of Section 10 CPC, a subsequent suit may be stayed only when a previously instituted suit between the same parties, involving the same subject matter, is pending before a competent civil court. He argues that in no case can a civil suit be stayed merely on account of the pendency of criminal proceedings, including proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, he prays that the present writ petition may be allowed and impugned order dated 16.10.2018 be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri Lalji Kesha Vaid v. Sri Dayanand R., Criminal Petition No. 331 of 2022, decided on 21.10.2024, in support of his case. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that not only are proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending, but an FIR has also been lodged by the defendant–respondent under Sections 420, 467, and 468 IPC against the plaintiff–petitioner, alleging that the cheque in question was stolen and misused by the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent thus contends that since the issues involved in the criminal as well as civil proceedings are interconnected and have a bearing on each other, the learned trial Court has rightly stayed the suit in order to avoid conflicting judgments. [2026:RJ-JP:14709] (4 of 10) [CW-27366/2018] 11. Learned counsel for the respondent prayed that the present writ petition may be dismissed and the order dated 16.10.2018 may be upheld. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of M.S. Sheriff vs. The State of Madras & Ors.; AIR 1954 SC 397, P Swaroopa Rani vs. M. Hari Narayana; AIR 2008 SC 1884, Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam & Ors. vs. State (Delhi Amn.) & Ors.; AIR 2009 SC 3232, in support of his case. 13. Heard and perused the material available on record. 14. Before adverting to the merits of the present dispute, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce Section 10 CPC for ready reference: “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 title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in [India] have 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 4 [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.” 15. The primary object of Section 10 CPC is to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously adjudicating parallel suits involving the same parties, subject matter, so as to avoid conflicting decisions. The provision is founded on principles of [2026:RJ-JP:14709] (5 of 10) [CW-27366/2018] equity and public policy, with the aim of confining parties to a single proceeding rather than subjecting them to multiple litigations before different courts in respect of the same issue. 16. Although Section 10 CPC is mandatory in nature, its applicability depends upon the fulfilment of certain essential conditions and the test of whether the decision in the previously instituted suit would operate as res-judicata in the subsequent suit. These conditions are: (i) there must be two suits, one previously instituted and the other subsequently instituted; (ii) the matter in issue in both suits must be directly and substantially the same; (iii) both suits must be between the same parties; (iv) the previously instituted suit must be pending in the same court or any other competent civil court in India; (v) the court in which the earlier suit is pending must have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit; and (vi) the parties must be litigating under the same title. 17. Among these, the essential requirement is that the previously instituted suit must be pending before a competent Civil Court. The expressions “suit” and “Court” used in Section 10 CPC are of crucial significance and must be construed in the context of civil proceedings. 18. In the scheme of the CPC, the term “suit” is to be read in conjunction with Section 9 CPC, which pertains exclusively to suits of a civil nature. Further, Order IV Rule 1 CPC provides that a suit is instituted by the presentation of a plaint before a civil court in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Thus, the term “suit” [2026:RJ-JP:14709] (6 of 10) [CW-27366/2018] under Section 10 CPC refers only to a civil suit instituted by presentation of a plaint. 19. Consequently, the “Court” contemplated under Section 10 CPC refers to a Civil Court alone. The provision has no application where proceedings are pending before forums other than Civil Courts, including criminal courts or tribunals, even if such forums possess certain trappings of a court. 20. Judicial precedents have consistently affirmed this position. In the case of Indian Bank vs. Maharashtra State Co- operative Federation Ltd.; AIR 1998 SC 1952, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that summary proceedings, though before Civil Courts, are not necessarily governed by Section 10 CPC. Similarly, in the case of Bherulal Bhatt vs. Kamal Singh; (2001) 1 Ren CJ 488, a Co-ordinate Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that proceedings before the Rent Control Authority do not constitute a “suit” for the purposes of Section 10 CPC. 21. Further, in the case of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences vs. C. Parameshwara; AIR 2005 SC 242, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering applicability of bar of Section 10 CPC has observed as under that: “The language of Section 10 that it is referable to a suit in the Civil Court it cannot apply other nature instituted under any other statute.” 22. Likewise, in the case of T. Seethapathy vs. Principal District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, rep. By its Administrative Officer; 2009 Supreme(AP) 348, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has observed that Section 10 CPC cannot be [2026:RJ-JP:14709] (7 of 10) [CW-27366/2018] invoked unless both proceedings are civil in nature. The relevant paragraph as under: “The pre-requisite in invoking the provision under Section 10 of C.P.C., is that both the proceedings referred therein are of civil nature. The provision clearly refers to previously instituted suit, which indicates that it must be of civil nature only. Therefore, unless and until both the proceedings referred therein are of civil nature, one cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Section 10 of C.P.C., and take advantage of it. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no application to the facts of the present case. As already held, the intent and purport of Section 10 of C.P.C. is that the proceedings referred to in the said provision must be of civil nature. Unless both the proceedings are of civil nature, jurisdiction under Section 10 cannot be invoked. In the instant case, as already noticed, while criminal case is instituted under the criminal jurisdiction regarding the alleged criminal acts of the petitioners in defalcating the amount, the civil suit is filed in the civil court under the civil jurisdiction for recovery of the defalcated amount. Both the cases come under different parameters. To invoke the jurisdiction under Section 10 C.P.C., it must be mandatory that both the proceedings referred to therein must be of civil jurisdiction. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the provisions under Section 10 C.P.C., have no application to the case of the petitioner.” 23. Recently, in the case of Usha & Anr. vs. Shahjad Bi @ Sejad & Ors; 2024 Supreme(SC) 1267, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that: “11. The object of this Section is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. [2026:RJ-JP:14709] (8 of 10) [CW-27366/2018] This Section deals with a rule of procedure. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter in both the suits is identical. The crucial words in Section 10 are “the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue” in the previously instituted suit. The aforesaid words are different from “incidentally or collaterally in issue”. Therefore, there must be identity of the matter in issue in both the suits inasmuch as the subject matter in both the proceedings is identical. But even on a consideration of the two suits, even if the property in respect of two suits is one and the same but the issues are separate and there is no identity at all with regard to the cause of action and also the reliefs that are sought in both the suits, the subsequent suit between the same parties, is not liable to be stayed under Section 10. Not only the matter in issue in the second suit should also be directly and substantially in issue in the first suit, but that the second suit must be for the same relief as that claimed in the first suit. Therefore, it is not only the identical subject matter but also the relief claimed in both suits that determine the applicability of Section 10. Thus, for instance, if the first suit is for partition and separate possession of the suit scheduled property and the second suit is for ejectment of a tenant from the same, then Section 10 would not apply.” 24. In the present case, the proceedings relied upon by the respondent are pending before a criminal Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and FIR proceedings under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Such proceedings cannot be construed as a previously instituted “suit” within the meaning of Section 10 CPC. [2026:RJ-JP:14709] (9 of 10) [CW-27366/2018] 25. Insofar as the judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondent are concerned, namely M.S. Sheriff (supra), P. Swaroopa Rani (supra), and Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam & Ors. (supra), this Court observes that the factual matrix in those cases is entirely distinct from that of the present case. In the aforesaid decisions, no issue pertaining to the applicability or interpretation of Section 10 CPC, arose for consideration. 26. In contrast, the core issue in the present matter revolves around the invocation and applicability of Section 10 CPC, which mandates the stay of proceedings where the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. Since the cited judgments do not address or adjudicate upon such a question, the legal principles laid down therein cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 27. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid judgments do not lend any support to the case of the respondent. 28. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the provisions of Section 10 CPC are not attracted in the present case, as the earlier proceedings are not civil suits pending before a civil court. Accordingly, the learned trial Court has committed a manifest error in staying the civil suit on account of the pendency of criminal proceedings. 29. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 16.10.2018, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan, [2026:RJ-JP:14709] (10 of 10) [CW-27366/2018] in Civil Suit No. 218/2011, is hereby quashed & set aside and the application filed by the defendant–respondent under Section 10 CPC stands dismissed. 30. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J Jubin/58