This is an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by Abdul Hayee for the stay of proceedings pending in the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Ferozewala at Shahdara, in the case entitled 'State v. Abdul Hayee' under sections 379 and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
2. The fact of the case briefly are that Truck No. LH 4761, 1964 Bedford Model, was sold by the petitioner to one Arsbad respondent No. 1 by a document called Iqrarnama by the parties, on 19th November 1968, for an amount of Rs.35,000. Rs. 9,000 were paid by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner as the first instalment. He was thereafter required to pay the balance by instalments. Stipulation in the deed was that if there was default in the payment of any instalment, the agreement shall stand cancelled and the petitioner shall be entitled to the return of the truck.
3. The allegation is that the aforesaid respondent committed default in the payment of instalments and since he did not carry out the terms of the agreement, the truck was taken away from him by the petitioner and sold to one Muhammad Sumar of Larkana.
4. Respondent No. 2 lodged a report with Ferozewala Police on 25th April 1970, alleging that the petitioner had forcibly taken away the truck from him. As a consequence thereof, proceedings started against him in the Court indicated above.
5. Long after the institution of the criminal case, the petitioner and Muhammad Sumar filed a declaratory suit in the civil Court at Lyallpur, claiming that they be declared to be the owners of the disputed truck and the agreement should be considered as cancelled.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the case of Muhammad Akbar v. The State and another (1) that where both the criminal and civil litigation is pending between the parties, the criminal Court should stay its hands, if the question to be decided before the two Courts is precisely the same. With this proposition of law, there can be no dispute. However, the question is, whether the question pending for decision before the Ferozewala Court is the same as that pending before the civil Court at Lyallpur. Although, the parties have termed their agreement as Iqrarnama, its contents reveal that immediately after the execution of the aforesaid document, the truck in question was passed on to respondent No. 2 on payment of Rs. 9,0d0. Some more instalments are said to have been paid by him, but that is besides the point and shall be considered at the relevant time by the Courts concerned. The transaction in question, though termed as Iqrarnama by the parties, appears to me to be sale out-right. However, this shall not be taken to be final opinion in the matter, as I am of the view that the matter pending before the criminal Court, if not wholly different, is definitely not the same as that pending before the civil Court at Lyallpur. In the aforesaid view of the matter, am of the opinion that the proceedings in the criminal Court at Ferozewala cannot be stayed, pending the decision of civil Court. However, I shall direct that the judgment in the criminal case shall not be announced till the decision ot the civil suit, pending at Lyallpur. A direction shall also issue to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lyallpur, before whom the civil suit is pending, to expedite the hearing of the case and decide it as expeditiously as is possible. Long adjournments shall not be given. The petition is disposed accordingly. .