JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to Courts.

2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction:-

(i) quash the impugned order dated 21.11.2020 (ANNEXURE-4) passed by the Learned Additional District Judge No. 4, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Misc. Case No. 145/2020; and

(ii) the application filed by the petitioners/applicants under Section 151 C.P.C. may be allowed with costs in toto"

3. Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners submits that the respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioners before the learned trial court.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners further submits that the petitioners preferred an application under Section 151 of the C.P.C. with the prayer seeking permission to conduct repair works in the shop premises in question, looking to the urgent need therefor.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners also submits that the said application was rejected merely on the ground that vide an order dated 03.02.2017 of this Hon'ble Court, a stay on further proceedings was operating with respect to the main suit, despite the shop premises in question being in urgent need of repairs, owing to the fact that the roof was broken and water was leaking therefrom. Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners thus submits that being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned trial court, the present petition has been preferred claiming the aforementioned reliefs.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners, in support of his submissions, relied upon the following judgments:

6.1. In 2008 (1) D.N.J. (Raj.) 128 : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1499 of 2006 Surendra Sawhney v. Muralidhar & Ors. wherein at Paras. 20 and 21, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court observed:

"20. The legal position, thus, appears to be well crystallised that inspite of the trial of the suit having been stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the consideration of the application/s for the interlocutory reliefs, such as grant of injunction, appointment of receiver, attachment before judgment, impleadment of a party, amendment in the plaint etc., may be considered and order passed because such an order cannot be taken to be a step in the trial of the suit.

21. Seen thus, it is apparent that the Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in deferring the consideration of the two applications made by the plaintiff. We find no justification in order of the trial Court in deferring the consideration of these two applications until the decision of he civil suit (301/1992) by Delhi High Court."

6.2. In 1999 Allahabad 1 : Civ. Misc. Writ Petn. No. 13293 of 1998 Rameshwar v. Vth Addl. Dist. Judge, Basti and others. wherein at Para 6, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court observed:

"Our experience shows that on many occasions for some reason or other further proceedings are stayed. In order to carry on the process of the suit certain steps are to be taken in aid of the proceedings or any other measures to keep the proceedings alive. The purpose of grant of stay is not the purpose to delay the process. If the interlocutory matter are decided and the suit is kept ready to proceed further as soon as the stay of further proceeding cease to be operative from a stage which could have arrived to ripen the case by disposing of interlocutory matter in between without affecting the merit of the case would be in aid of the judicial process and as such not un-welcomed. On the other hand it would shorten the time and help the parties to make the suit ready."

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants/responde