Kumaraswami Sastri, J.
1. The Sub-Registrar refused registration and criminal proceedings were at once instituted by the present counter-petitioner. The 1st petitioner has filed a suit under the provisions of the Registration Act. I am if opinion that this is a case where criminal proceedings should be stayed pending the disposal of civil proceedings. There will be no hardship to the counter-petitioner, while on the other hand the petitioners will be seriously hampered if criminal proceedings in which the 1st petitioner and the attesting witnesses are accused are not stayed. I do not think it makes any difference in principle whether the criminal proceedings have been instituted in pursuance of sanction given by a Court, or in the exercise of the right given to a party to institute proceedings when no sanction is necessary. In either case the test is, whether the party is likely to be prejudiced by criminal proceedings going1 on when a civil suit is pending in which the genuineness of the document is in issue. In the present case the law srives the 1st petitioner the right of appeal to the District Registrar and the right of a suit to direct registration. I can see no grounds for holding that when a party anticipating an appeal to the Registrar and a civil suit rushes into a Criminal Court, the Court should not stay proceedings pending the civil suit, especially when all the attesting witnesses are co-accused.
2. It is argued that the discretion of the 2nd Class Magistrate should not be disturbed. I am unable to find any intelligible ground on which the Sub-Magistrate refused to stay proceedings, The power of the High Court to stay proceedings is clear Anna Ayyar v. Emperor 6 Cri.L.J. 131.
3. I direct that the criminal proceedings be stayed pending the disposal of Original Suit No. 34 of 1914. The District Munsif will see that the suit is disposed of as early as possible.