Surinder Sarup, J.: This revision petition is directed against the order of the court of Mr. R.C. Sharma, Senior Sub Judge, Solan where by he has accepted the application of the defendants-respondents under Section 10 read it with Section 151 and has stayed the suit of the plaintiff-petitioner till the decision of a civil suit pending between the parties in this court.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for redemption and declaration on the pleadings that the plaintiff No. 1-firm secured a term a loan of Rs. 1,26,000/-in the year 1979 from the defendant bank and also made cash credit limit of Rs 70,00U/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/- in the year 1980 and to Rs.3,00r000/- in the year 1981. The amount of term loan was payable with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum simple interest and the cash credit limit was payable with interest at the rate of 11% per annum simple interest as agreed to between the parties. It was alleged that the bank initially had been charging the agreed rate of interest but subsequently without the consent of the plaintiffs and arbitrarily, the defendants enhanced the rate of interest with respect to the said two facilities.

3. In order to obtain relief, the plaintiff filed civil suit No. 131/1 of 1988 in the court of Sub Judge, (III), Simila for declaration and mandatory injunction. That suit was withdrawn as the defendant -bank agreed to charge the agreed rate of interest. After the withdrawal of the said suit, a meeting was held on 14th November 1991 at Shimla between plaintiff No.2 and the defendant -bank where it was agreed that the defendants would only charge interest at the rate of 9.5% on term loan and 11%on cash credit limit and the plaintiffs would liquidate the outstanding amount by 31st December 1991. It has also been pleaded that the plaintiffs deposited a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the term loan account in the year 1991 which was to be adjusted towards the principal account. The plaintiffs have paid a total sum of Rs.8.31.500/- in both the accounts but on 18th June. 1993 they received a letter from the defendant informing them that the interest at the rate of 23.55% per annum with quarterly rests would be charged prior to 2nd March. 1992 and at the rate of 23.55% per annum with quarterly rests after 1st March 1.993. Thai increase has been alleged to be illegal arbitrary etc. and not binding on the plaintiffs because the defendant bank is liable to receive or charge the rate of interest as per circular date 24th January 1979 and agreement between the parties. According to the plaintiff, the defendants have not supplied the statement of account to the plaintiffs to enable them to liquidate their liability, if any. It has further been pleaded that the said term loan has been secured by simple mortgage of property consisting of plot No. 10, Sector -1, Parwanoo and the building constructed thereon. That mortgage is alleged to have been effected on 1 lth January 1979 in favour of the defendants. The whole mortgage money has been paid to the defendant-bank and that if the court finds that any sum will be due to the defendant on the mortgage by calculating the simple rate of interest at the rate of 9.5%, the plaintiffs are ready and willing to pay the same. The plaintiffs have asked the defendants to render true accounts and to give statement of account but without avail. Hence the suit.

4. During the pungency of the suit, the defendants moved an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the subject matter of the suit is the loan facility availed by the plaintiffs from the defendant-bank in the shape of term loan and cash credit limit since 1979 and the plaintiffs have challenged the rate of interest being charged and claimed by the bank and has also claimed a decree of redemption of the mortgaged property which is collateral security held by the bank in said two loan