JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Plaintiffs in Money suit No. 3 of 1983 pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Baripada filed this petition u/s 115, CPC (for short 'the Code') seeking to assail the order dated 30th of August, 1986 rejecting their application under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code. 2. The Petitioners filed the aforementioned suit against the opposite party for realisation of Rs. 1,650/- from his towards arrear house rent till 30th September, 1982, and compensation for unauthorised occupation from 1.10.1982 at the rate of Rs. 5/- per day amounting to Rs. 570/- till filing of the suit and for other consequential reliefs. The suit was decreed ex parte against the opposite party. On his application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code, the Court below set aside the ex parte decree subject to payment of cost with a further direction that the Defendant would file his written statement within thirty days. Having failed to file the written statement within the time granted by the Court the written statement of the Defendant was not accepted. Against the said order of the trial Court he filed Civil Revision No. 91 of 1986 before this Court has passed the order directing stay of further proceedings in the suit. Communication of the stay order was received by the trial Court on 28.2.1986 as appeared from the discussions in the impugned order. Thereafter on 25.4.1986 the Petitioners filed a petition u/s 151 and Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code with the prayer to direct the opposite party to deposit the entire arrear dues as claimed in the plaint and to further deposit day to day compensation arising thereafter or to pass an order for attachment of his movable. The Petitioners alleged, inter alia, that the opposite party who has no immovable property at Baripada and earns his livelihood by private service in a shop and by doing some small business, is likely to leave the jurisdiction of the Court in order to avoid payment of decreetal dues which is likely to be passed against him. The Petitioners alleged, inter alia, that the opposite party who has no immovable property at Baripada and earns his livelihood by private service in a shop and by doing some small business, is likely to leave the jurisdiction of the Court in order to avoid payment of decreetal dues which is likely to be passed against him. The opposite party in his objection to the petition filed by the Petitioners while denying generally the allegations made in the petition took the stand that in view of the order of stay passed by this Court in the revision petition filed by him, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code. The learned Subordinate Judge on consideration accepted the objection raised by the opposite party and rejected the application filed by the Petitioners holding that it was not maintainable during subsistence of the order of stay passed by this Court. The Court also considered the application on its merit and held that no case for attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code was made out in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners challenged the findings of the Court below on both aspects, that is, maintainability of the application as well as its merit. On the question of maintainability, the contention of the learned Counsel was that the order of stay of further proceedings meant further proceedings for trial of the suit and the said order did not affect jurisdiction of the trial Court to pass interlocutory orders for the purpose of keeping the proceedings alive. On the other aspect, he contended that the Court below did not consider properly the allegations made in the petition filed by the Petitioners. The learned Counsel for the opposite party on the other hand supported the order passed by the Court below. 4. The solution to the controversy regarding maintainability centres round the question what is the meaning and import of the order of stay further proceedings in the suit passed by the revisional Court. If the order is construed to mean stay of all further proceedings in the suit no matter whether it relates to hearing of the suit or any other collateral matter, then it has to be held that the learned Subordinate Judge took the correct view in the matter. If the order is construed to mean stay of all further proceedings in the suit no matter whether it relates to hearing of the suit or any other collateral matter, then it has to be held that the learned Subordinate Judge took the correct view in the matter. If on the other hand, the order of stay means only stay of hearing of the suit and does not affect jurisdiction of the trial Court which is in seision of the suit to pass orders in collateral matters, then the application under Order 38 Rule 5 filed by the Petitioners before the Court below was maintainable. The point has been considered by different High Courts and there seems to be divergence of opinion amongst them. While the Madras High Court in the case of CT. A. CT. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. CT. A. CT. Subramanian Chettiar and Others Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Madanlal Agarwal Vs. Smt. Kamlesh Nigam, Mysore High Court in the case of Soburao Vithalrao Sulanke v. Madarappa Presappa Debbennavar AIR 1974 Mys 63, and the Bombay High Court in the case of Khemraj Ratanlal Sancheti and Ors. v. Vasant Madhoose Vyavhare and Anr. Rule, 1981 M.L.J.200, have taken the view that the trial Court retains its jurisdiction to pass interlocutory orders for the purpose of keeping the proceedings alive or for preserving the subject-matter of the dispute or for protecting the interest of the parties to the suit during pendency of the stay order passed by the appellate or revisional Court. The Patna High Court in the case of Motiram Roshanlal Coal Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. District Committee and Others held that an order of stay passed by a superior Court becomes effective immediately after it is passed and it has the effect of suspending the power of the lower Court to continue the proceedings in the case. Any order passed by the lower Court in spite of the order of stay of further proceedings is without urisdiction. It is necessary to point out here that in the case before the Patna High Court the order passed by the lower Court in contravention of the order of stay of further proceedings was one appointing a commissioner. As such, the order directly relating to hearing of the suit and was not one relating to a collateral matter. It is necessary to point out here that in the case before the Patna High Court the order passed by the lower Court in contravention of the order of stay of further proceedings was one appointing a commissioner. As such, the order directly relating to hearing of the suit and was not one relating to a collateral matter. On the other hand, the cases considered by the Madhya Pradesh and Mysore High Courts arose directly out of applications made under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code as in the present case. In the case of CT. A. CT. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. CT. A. CT. Subramanian Chettiar and Others, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court Considered the question whether it was open to the trial Court to make a reference to arbitration in the suit during pendency of the order of stay of further proceedings granted by the superior Court, Justice Venkatarama Aiyar speaking for the Court answered the question in the affirmative. I have carefully perused all the decisions referred to above. With respect, I would agree with the view taken by the learned Judges of the Madras, Mysore, Madhya Pradesh and Bombay High Courts holding that the lower Court retains its jurisdiction to consider and pass orders in matters which are collateral or which may be protective or which would be for the purpose of keeping the lis alive, even during subsistence of the order of the superior Court directing stay of further proceedings in the suit. But the Court should take care to ascertain that the subject matter in the petition does not touch the trial of the suit which has been stayed by the superior Court. To hold otherwise may in many cases work out injustice inasmuch as for every collateral matter the parties will be compelled to approach the appellate or revisional Court though such a matter may not be within the ambit and scope of appeal or revision pending before the superior Court. To give an instance, when an appeal or revision is filed against an interlocutory order, the matter dealt with in that order is the subject matter in appeal or revision as the case may be. The application relating to the collateral matter may have no connection with the appeal or revision. To give an instance, when an appeal or revision is filed against an interlocutory order, the matter dealt with in that order is the subject matter in appeal or revision as the case may be. The application relating to the collateral matter may have no connection with the appeal or revision. In such cases also the party will be compelled to approach the appellate or revisional Court if it is held that in view of the stay order the trial Court is denuded of his jurisdiction to pass any order in the suit. On the aforesaid analysis, I would hold that the learned Subordinate Judge was not right in holding that in view of the order of this Court directing stay of further proceedings in the suit the Petitioners, application under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code filed before him was not maintainable. 5. Coming to the question of merits of the prayer for attachment of movables before judgment, as noticed earlier, the trial Court found no substance in it. It appears from the records that the parties led no evidence in support of their respective cases. Excepting the petition which was supported by an affidavit, the Petitioners placed no material before the trial Court to substantiate their allegations to the effect, inter alia, that the opposite party was not a man of means excepting a few movable properties not of much value, he had no other property lying within the jurisdiction of the Court and that he was likely to leave the jurisdiction of the Court to avoid payment under the decree which is likely to be passed against him in the suit. In such circumstances, the trial Court held and, in my view rightly, that no attempt was made by the Petitioners seeking the extraordinary relief of attachment before judgment to satisfy the Court of existence of the circumstances for such an order. Therefore the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the allegations in the application under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code were not established is unassailable. 6. On the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs while disagreeing with the finding of the Court below that the application u/s 151 and Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code filed by the Petitioners was not maintainable. 6. On the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs while disagreeing with the finding of the Court below that the application u/s 151 and Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code filed by the Petitioners was not maintainable. I uphold the order confirming the finding that no case was made out by the Petitioners for an order directing attachment of the properties of the opposite party under the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code. 7. The Civil Revision therefore fails and it is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed