Court has to see whether there is bar for entertaining application.

1. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 298 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur have come to this court complaining about the illegality of procedure adopted by the Lower Court.

2. Petitioners have filed the suit for declaration that they are hereditary Poojaries and for consequential reliefs. Respondents had filed a suit against some third parties for the relief relating to settlement of accounts, etc.; and the same is pending before this Court in S.A.1548 of 1995. In view of the pendency of second appeal before this Court, an application was filed by respondents to have the entire suit stayed under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. The Court also passed an order under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure staying all the proceedings.

3. Thereafter, the same petitioners moved an application for injunction in the suit seeking for some urgent reliefs. I am not going into the question as to the relief sought for in that injunction application since the court refused to entertain the same in view of the stay of suit under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. The Court refused even to receive the application and returned the same. That procedure is challenged in this revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

4. Since Lower court did not receive the application, I do not think that I should issue notice to the respondents in this proceedings.

5. Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure read thus: "SECTION 10: No court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court."

Commenting on Section 10, Mulla of C.P.C., 15th Edition 1995, learned author has said thus:

A stay order under this Section does not take away the power of the Court in the stayed suit to make interlocutory orders, such as orders for a receiver or an injunction, or an attachment before judgment. An order of stay under this Section does not take away the jurisdiction of the court to refer the suit to arbitration with the consent of parties."

6. In a recent decision of Supreme Court reported in Amit Kaushish v. Sanjay Kaushish, JT 1995 (8) S.C. 507 their Lordships held thus,

"The impugned order is only a direction to list the appeal FAO (OS) No.221 of 1991 filed by the appellants for disposal pending in the High Court. The Division Bench by its order dated July 12, 1994 directed to list the appeal for final hearing on October, 17, 1994 within first five cases. It would appear that there is long drawn litigation inter se parties. Since the time fixed by the High Court is already over and the appeal is yet to be disposed of, we request the High Court to appropriately fix an early date for disposal, preferably before the end of this year.

"2. The learned counsel for the respondents stated that on account of the stay of the suit, his clients are prevented to take any direction or order by way of interlocutory application. The stay of the trial of the suit does not preclude the respondents to seek such appropriate interlocutory relief as may be available and warranted in the facts and circumstances."

7. In a very recent decision of Allahabad High Court reported in Rameshwar v. Vth Additional District Judge, Basti, 1999 All L.J. 22, it is held thus,

"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