PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. GAJENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order of learned District Judge, Banswara dated 17. 5. 1995 by which he allowed the application under Section 10 of the CPC filed by the defendants and stayed proceedings of the suit No. 9/94 till the conclusion of the proceedings pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Banswara under the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred as `the Act of 1974' ).

(2.) FACTS leading to the revision are that the plaintiff petitioner filed a civil suit for recovery of some amount against the defendants respondents. The plaintiff petitioner before filing the suit No. 9/94 had filed an application under the Act of 1974 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Banswara which was registered as proceed-ing No. 892/90. The defendants moved application under Section 10 CPC to stay the proceedings of the suit saying that since the plaintiff had started proceedings under Section 13 of the Act of 1974, the suit may be stayed. Learned District Judge vide impugned order stayed the suit under Section 10 of CPC.

(3.) MY view that the proceedings are not a suit is fortified by some such similar interpretations in different citations. In Jaipur Vastra Vyopar Sangh Ltd. (In liquidation) and another vs. Shyam Sunder Lal Patodia (1), it was observed that a proceeding which is not required to be treated as a suit under any other law, is not a suit. The matter related to Companies Act. The question was whether an application un-der Section 543 of the Companies Act would be a suit. It was held that it cannot be said that it will be a suit within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC.