JUDGMENT S.R. Bhargava, J. - This appeal is directed against order dismissing appellants application for appointment of receiver in a case for removal of 4 Trustee and appointment of new Trustee under Sections 73/74 of Trust Act. 2. It is not disputed that respondent No. 3 Shamhhu Nath moved application for removal of Trustee, namely Smt. Dullo Devi, respondent No. 1. Be moved application for appointment of receiver on ground of mismanagement and waste. It is also not disputed that appellant Dharam Pal was arrayed as one of the opposite parties in the case. On 26th March, 1983 application of Shambhu Nath for appointment of receiver was dismissed. It now appears that against the said order Shambhu Nath preferred appeal in High Court registered as F.A.F.O. No. 380 of 1983, which is still pending. The case of 1979 could not be decided till as late as 1987. Appellant Dharam Pal moved another application for appointment of receiver. Again the allegations were of mismanagement and waste. It was further alleged that Smt. Dullo Devi admitted that the rent of property was being realised by Dharam Pal on her instructions. But when she learnt about the irregularity she restrained him from realising rent. It was further asserted that (here was non-compliance of the terms of Trust. By collusion between themselves opposite parties were protracting the case. This application was resisted on behalf of Smt. Dullo Devi Lower Court dismissed the application only on one ground of the res judicata. It did not express opinion on the merits of the application. 3. Being aggrieved Dharam Pal has come up in appeal. 4. Parties have been heard at admission stage. On behalf of the respondents objection regarding limitation was raised. It appears that application for copies of order dated 19th August, 1987 and formal order was filed on 21st August, 1987. Copies were prepared on 2nd December, 1987 and were issued on 7th December, 1987. Meanwhile an application for review was moved on which order was passed on 24th February, 1988. On 29th February, 1988 the present appeal was filed. Excluding tire time consumed 'n preparation of copies this appeal has been filed within 90 days of (the order and is within time. 5. On behalf of the appellant it was vehemently argued that the application for appointment of receiver should have been disposed of on merits. On 29th February, 1988 the present appeal was filed. Excluding tire time consumed 'n preparation of copies this appeal has been filed within 90 days of (the order and is within time. 5. On behalf of the appellant it was vehemently argued that the application for appointment of receiver should have been disposed of on merits. Reliance had been placed on order dated 18th November, 1987 passed in Civil Revision No. 102 of 1987 Kailash Nath v. Smt. Dullo Devi and another. I have gone through the judgment passed in the revision. What appeal's is that suit was filed against Smt. Dullo Devi and another for declaration that Smt. Dullo Devi is of unsound mind. Trial court did not enquire into the case whether Smt. Dullo Devi is of unsound mind or not. It directed Smt. Dullo Devi to file written statement. Against this revision was filed. Revisional Court allowed the revision and directed that the trial court should frame an issue on the point of unsoundness of mind of Smt. Dullo Devi and should dispose of that issue. If it is found that she is of unsound mind a provisional guardian ad-litem should be appointed for her and them only further orders should be passed. This judgment does not disclose that Smt. Dullo Devi is of unsound mind and is unfit to continue as Trustee. 'Whether Smt. Dullo Devi is of unsound mind or not is a matter yet to be decided in original suit No. 164 of 1984. 6. So far as question of res judicata is concerned no doubt principle res judicata applies at different stages of the same suit. It is also true that appellant Dharam Pal was a party to the earlier proceedings for appointment of Receiver. But it is equally true that appeal has been filed against order dismissing earlier application for appointment of Receiver. In these circumstances the earlier order cannot be said to have become final. Hence principle of res judicata cannot apply. But the points in issue for appointment of Receiver are the same in both the applications. Hence, Principle enshrined in Section 10, C.P.C. will be attracted. The lower court ought to have stayed decision of subsequent proceedings for appointment of Receiver and should have awaited result of appeal filed against earlier order. 7. In the circumstances narrated above this appeal should succeed. Hence, Principle enshrined in Section 10, C.P.C. will be attracted. The lower court ought to have stayed decision of subsequent proceedings for appointment of Receiver and should have awaited result of appeal filed against earlier order. 7. In the circumstances narrated above this appeal should succeed. Order under appeal should be set aside and case should be sent back to the lower court with the direction that subsequent proceedings for appointment of Receiver should be stayed awaiting result of appeal against former order. 8. Appeal is allowed. Order under appeal is set aside. Case is sent back to lower court for compliance of directions mentioned above and for fresh disposal of proceedings for appointment of Receiver after disposal of appeal of the former order. In the circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs. Appeal Allowed. Case is sent back to trial court for