1712lpa223.11 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 223/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1918 OF 2011 (Smt. Vacchalabai wd/o Mahadeo Pradhan & Ors. vs. Namdeo Dashrath Barde) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DECEMBER 17, 2011. Heard Shri Gharote, learned counsel for the appellants/ petitioners and Shri Gadhia, learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 & 4. The facts are not in dispute. Respondent No.1 filed suit for declaration of his title and for protection of his possession. The trial Court found him in possession and protected it but did not grant declaration. This finding was assailed by Respondent No. 1 in Regular Civil Appeal and the appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court. The present appellants challenged that order of remand in A.O. before this Court and this Court maintained that order. The appellants have then filed SLP No. 12447 of 2008 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and in it the Hon'ble Apex Court has granted “stay of further proceedings in connection with RCA No. 1399 of 1999 and RCS No. 418 of 2001, pending before the Vth Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur. 1712lpa223.11 2/4 It is not in dispute that the word RCA appearing in this order is in fact the word RCS. This also becomes clear from the fact that both the proceedings are stated to be pending before the trial Court. Because of finding of possession in favour of present Respondent No. 1, the appellants have filed another suit i.e. RCS No. 418 of 2001 to recover it. Finding that Respondent No. 1 is attempting to dispose of the property, they sought appropriate interim relief of temporary injunction in their suit and because of above mentioned orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court, that has not been looked into. The refusal of trial Court to consider that application was questioned before the learned Single Judge, who has found refusal by trial Court justified. Thereafter present LPA has been filed. By placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank vs. Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., reported at AIR 1998 SC 1952 and the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Harish Motichand Sariya vs. Ajanta India Limited & Ors., reported at 2003 (6) Bom. C.R. 178, Shri Gharote, learned counsel contends that stay granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court does not mean that the trial Court is denuded of its power to grant appropriate interim relief so as to protect suit property during the pendency of litigation. Shri Gadhia, learned counsel contends that 1712lpa223.11 3/4 the view reached concurrently does not call for any interference. He points out that the Hon'ble Apex Court as also the learned Single Judge of this Court have looked into provisions of Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, the scope of word “trial” employed therein. The learned counsel is relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mulraj vs. Murti Raghunathji Mahaaraj, reported at AIR 1967 SC 1386. After hearing the respective counsel, we find that in the case of Indian Bank vs. Maharashtra State Co- operative Marketing Federation Ltd., (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that when a suit is stayed under Section 10 of CPC, the Court in which subsequently instituted suit is pending, cannot proceed with “trial of the suit” but that does not mean that it cannot deal with that suit any more for any other purpose. It is found that the word “trial” in Section 10 has not been used in its widest sense. The object of prohibition contained in Section 10 of CPC is found relevant for this purpose. The learned Single Judge of this Court has considered Section 10, this judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and for similar reasons, found that in such subsequently instituted suit, appropriate interim relief can be granted. In present matter, this Court is not concerned with Section 10 of CPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court before which the propriety of remand is pending, has found it necessary to stay further proceedings. It is, therefore, 1712lpa223.11 4/4 obvious that all further proceedings in both suits are stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. We are not in a position to hold that further proceedings envisaged by the Hon'ble Apex Court can also be understood in the light of the meaning of word “trial” in its judgment in the case of Indian Bank vs. Maharashtra State Co- operative Marketing Federation Ltd., (supra). The stay of further proceedings clearly imply the stay of suit and, therefore, the trial Court is prohibited from taking any steps in those suits till the Hon'ble Apex Court passes further appropriate orders in the matter. We, therefore, do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned order. Letters Patent Appeal is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.