The court has jurisdiction to hear and decide applications for interim relief, such as injunctions, even when the suit is stayed under section 10 CPC, as such applications are not part of the trial of the suit.

R.S. Garg, J.

1. By the impugned order, the Court below has rejected the plaintiff's application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, observing that as the proceedings of the suit were stayed under section 10 CPC, because of the earlier instituted suit No. 20-A/83, the Court would have no jurisdiction to hear and decide an application for grant of an ad interim injuction. In the opinion of this Court, the Court has not appreciated the legal provisions and impact and effect of section 10 CPC. Section 10 provides that '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'. The explanation appended to section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action. The key words in section 10 are 'No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit', if the Court finds that the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they claim title, the Court as a rule of prudence, to avoid conflicting decrees, stays the proceedings in the subsequent suit. Stay of the proceeding in the subsequent suit is only in relation to the trial of the suit. Applications for correction of the records, appointment of the receiver, grant of injunction, attachment of the property or such other application which have nothing to do with the trial of the suit or which have nothing to do with the progress of the suit can be decided by the Court.

2. Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may if it is so prescribed, -

(a) issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why he should not give security for his appearance and if he fails to comply with any order for security commit him to the civil prison;

(b) direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and place the same at the disposal of the Court or under the attachment of any property;

(c) grant a temporary injuction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof the civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold;

(d) appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling his property;

(e) make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient.

3. Part VI clearly shows that the proceedings under section 94 are supplemental proceedings. The Court has to try those proceedings to prevent ends of justice from being defeated or to avoid abuse of the process of law. In the supplemental proceedings, the Court can issue a warrant of arrest, may attach the property, may direct the defendant to furnish security, to produce any property belonging to him, the Court may grant injunction and in case of disobedience may commit such person to civil prison or may order attachment of his property and may direct it to be sold. The Court may appoint a receiver of any property and enforce performance of his duties by attachment and sale of the property. The Court has power to make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient.

4. What appears to be just and convenient to the Court, if is in relation to the trial of the suit, then the Court would not pass any order because the trial of the suit, because of stay granted under se