Honble LODHA, J.–The appeal is admitted, Mr. Naveen Dhuan Advocate waives service for respondents No. 1 and 2. In view of the controversy that is involved in the appeal, we heard the counsel for the parties for final disposal of the appeal at this stage itself.

(2). The present appellant is the original plaintiff. In the civil suit No. 57/1995 he prayed for a decree of specific performance of the agreement to sale date 22.3.1992 against the present respondents No. 1 and 2 (original defendant Nos. 1 and 2) and other incidental reliefs. For the sake of brevity and convenience, we shall refer the appellant, `the plaintiff and the respondents No. 1 and 2, `the defendants.

(3). Upon service of summons, the defendants made an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC for short) for staying the trial in the aforesaid suit because in the suit (301/1991) filed by them before the Delhi High Court against the present appellant, the issue concerning the agreement dated 22.3.1992 was directly involved.

(4). The trial Court by its order dated 12.2.1998 stayed the trial of the suit until the disposal of the previously instituted civil suit (301/1991) by the Delhi High Court. Thus, the trial in the suit (57/1995) remains stayed.

(5). In the month of July, 2006, the plaintiff made two applications before the trial Court in Suit No. 57/1995. By one application made under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, the plaintiff prayed for impleadment of Ram Lal Choudhary and Smt. Hans Kaur who were sold part of the property in the month of February, 2006 and the consequential amendment, particularly, the cancellation of the two sale-deeds. By another application made under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, the plaintiff prayed for an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from disposing of or transferring the subject property in any manner what-so-ever during the pendency of the suit.

(6). The defendants opposed these applications by setting up the stand that the proceedings in the suit having been stayed, the applications could not be entertained.

(7). The trial Court by its order dated 29.8.2006 deferred the consideration of these applications until the disposal of the suit (301/1991) by Delhi High Court since the trial in the suit remained stayed.

(8). The plaintiff challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 29.8.2006 by filing writ petition before this Court.

(9). The Single Judge by his order dated 8.12.2006 dismissed the writ petition in limine thus:

``After having carefully gone through the material on record, apart from been purely a contractual matter, since disputed questions of fact and law are involved, no interference is called for by this Court under writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merits."

(10). The plaintiff has taken exception to the order of the Single Judge dated 8th December, 2006 in this special appeal.

(11). The solitary question that needs our advertence is whether as a result of the order dated 12.2.1998 staying the trial in Civil Suit No. 57/1995, the trial court was justified in deferring the consideration of the applicants made by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and another application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

(12). Ithas been the consistent judicial view that the word `trial in Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not used in its widest sense. The provision being in the nature of rule of procedure, it does not effect the jurisdiction of the court to entertain and deal with interlocutory matters in the suit. This aspect was under consideration directly before the Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank vs. Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (AIR 1998 SC 1952). This is what the Supreme Court said with regard to the word `trial in Section 10 and the jurisdiction of the court in dealing with the interlocu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document