REVA KHETRAPAL, J

1. The Plaintiff has filed the aforementioned interim application, being IA No.2880/2011, praying for passing of an order granting stay of the proceedings in Consumer Complaint No.11 of 2009, pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal District Forum, Gautam Budh Nagar till adjudication of the suit filed by the Plaintiff.

2. The facts material for the determination of the present application are as follows.

3. The Plaintiff instituted the abovementioned Inter-pleader suit under Order XXXV read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before this Court against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking, inter alia, interpleading of the Defendants in respect of a dispute relating to the title/ownership of a consignment of 85,200 Kilograms of cast iron scrap shipped by M/s. Accord Metals (Kenya) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ACCORD”) through the Plaintiff sometime in October, 2008. The Plaintiff agreed to carry the aforesaid consignment from the port of Mombasa, Kenya to the port of Dadri, India on freight prepaid basis in three containers, which were released by its local agent to Accord for stuffing their cargo. Upon receipt of the said three containers for shipment, the Plaintiff loaded these containers onboard M.V. Nordstar at Mombasa, Kenya and issued an original Bill of Lading bearing No.751156016 to Accord, in terms of whose instructions Defendant No.2 was named as consignee thereon.

4. The Plaintiff states that a short while after the shipment was loaded onboard the M.V. Nordstar, Accord made a request to the Plaintiff to make alterations to the name of the Shipper and consignee. Accordingly, in lieu of surrender of the original Bill of Lading issued to Accord and in conformity with instructions received from Accord, the local agents of the Plaintiff issued a fresh Bill of Lading, in terms of internationally accepted customary shipping trade practice, reflecting the name of the Shipper as Goyal General Trading LLC and the name of the consignee was altered from that of Defendant No.2 to that of Defendant No.1.

5. The Plaintiff asserts that to its utter shock and surprise, on or about 24th November, 2008, a legal notice was issued on behalf of the Defendant No.2 to the Plaintiff calling upon them not to release the consignment of cargo encompassed by the subject Bill of Lading to any person until investigations in a criminal complaint filed by them with the Economic Offences Wing (Crime Branch), New Delhi, were completed.

6. On or about 25th November, 2008, in a suit filed by the Defendant No.2 in the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, an ex parte order restraining the local agents of the Plaintiff from releasing the subject consignment came to be passed. On or about 26th November, 2008, the aforesaid consignment arrived at the nominated place of delivery whereupon Defendant No.1 presented the original Bill of Lading No.751156016 dated 30th October, 2008 seeking delivery, but was informed that the consignment could not be delivered to it in view of the title dispute between it (the Defendant No.1) and the Defendant No.2. The Defendant No.1 thereupon addressed a legal notice dated 16th December, 2008 to the Plaintiff demanding a Delivery Order in relation to the subject Bill of Lading. The Plaintiff replied by its letter dated 7th January, 2009. Meanwhile, on 6th January, 2009, Defendant No.1 filed a consumer complaint before the Consumer Forum aforementioned against the Plaintiff praying for a Delivery Order to be issued in respect of the consignment shipped by it and seeking monetary compensation. The Plaintiff filed an application for impleadment of the Defendant No.2 M/s. KRK Impex Pvt. Ltd. before the Consumer Forum on 25th February, 2009, which was disallowed on 25th April, 2009.

7. Meanwhile, on 12th March, 2010, the High Court of Kenya passed an order restraining the Plaintiff or its agents from releasing the subject consignment to any person other than the Defendant No.2 and also di