TARE, C. J. : - This case was referred by a Single Bench to consider the guestion whether during the pendency of a stay order passed by the High Court in a Civil Revision, the trial Court could pass an order of attachment before judgment under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The facts leading to the present reference are as follows. The respondent is the land-lady and the petitioner is her tenant. The respondent filed a suit for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent, which is registered as Civil Suit No. 210-A of 1970. The trial Judge passed an order, dated 16-2-1971, striking out the defence of the present petitioner on the ground mentioned in Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (6) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Against that order, the defendant filed a revision in this Court, which was registered as Civil Revision No. 312 of 1971. This Court, by its order, dated 24-9-1971, allowed the revision and remanded the case to the trial Court for a fresh decision on the question of striking out the defence.

3. Thereafter, the trial Judge passed an order, dated 7-1-1972, in pursuance of the remand order and again ordered the defence to be struck out. Against that order, the defendant filed Civil Revision No. 49 of 1972. This Court passed an interim stay order, dated 21-1-1972, in the following words :

Meanwhile, further proceedings in the trial Court shall be stayed'">. The said Revision was ultimately allowed by this Court by order, dated 19-4-1972. By the said order, this Court remanded the case for a fresh decision after giving the defendant an opportunity to have his say. In the meantime the tenant vacated the premises.

4. The respondent land-lady moved the trial Court for an order of attachment before judgment under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the trial Judge passed an ex parte order on 2-3-1972, which was subsequently confirmed by that Court on 5-4-1972 after notice to the defendant. That was during the pendency of Civil Revision No. 49 of 1972, which was ultimately allowed by this Court on 19-4-1972. Therefore, the question arises whether the trial Judge could pass an order of attachment before judgment during the subsistence of the stay order passed by this Court on 21-1-1972 in Civil Revision No. 49 of 1972.

5. Usually, stay orders are passed by the appellate Court or by the revisional Court. In some kinds of stay orders, there is partial stay. Or, in some other types of stay orders, the stay is complete. But, it is to be noted that the stay may be regarding execution of decree or in respect of further proceedings in the trial Court the stay order passed by this Court on 21-1-1972 was in respect of further trial of the suit. It is, therefore, necessary to ascertain as to what the phrase exactly implies. There can be no doubt that when further trial of the suit or further proceedings in the trial Court are stayed, the Court of original jurisdiction or the Court below, as the case may be, would have no jurisdiction to take any steps which would be in furtherance of the trial on merits. Can it be said that the trial Court loses all jurisdiction to take any collateral action which may, in a sense, be towards the progress of the suit, but which is not in furtherance of the trial of the suit on merits ? For instance, if the appellate or the revisional Court has passed a stay order, can it be said that the trial Court cannot, on a request made by the parties, refer the dispute to arbitration? In Chidambaram v. Subramanian, AIR 1953 Mad 492 a preliminary decree had been passed, against which an appeal had been filed in the High Court. The High Court had passed a stay order staving the passing of a final decree. During the pendency of the stay order, an application was made in the trial Court by both the parties to refer the dispute to arbitration. The Division Bench of the High Court laid down that merely because of the pendency of the stay order, the parties wo