C. K. THAKKAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision application is filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the Civil Judge (S. D.) Morvi on July 18 1992 below application Exh. 239 in Special Civil Suit No. 77 of 1990. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is original plaintiff while the respondents are original defendants. The plaintiffs filed the above suit against the defendant for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering any tax under the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963 Along with the plaint the plaintiff filed application Exh. 5 for interim injunction restraining the Municipality from recovering tax. The trial court after hearing the parties granted application by restraining the defendant- Municipality and its officers servants and agents from recovering any tax. However the trial court permitted the Municipality to recover tax if the Municipality was ready to furnish an undertaking that in case the plaintiff succeeded in the suit the Municipality should refund the amount within the stipulated period. The undertaking was to be filed by the Chief Officer of the Municipality duly authorised by resolution passed by the General Board. The operative part of the said order read as under :" If the defendant no. 1 Morvi Municipality furnishes undertaking that if the plaintiff succeeds in the suit the Municipality shall refund within two months octroi duty consolidated tax licence fees wheel tax education cess local fund etc. and all the taxes paid by the plaintiff Company during the pendency of the suit to the plaintiff Company. It is provided that such undertaking shall be furnished by the Chief Officer of the Municipality duly authorised by a resolution passed by the General Board of the defendant no. 1 Morvi Municipality". If the defendant no. 1 Morvi Municipality furnished undertaking as per the above order then the interim injunction granted above shall automatically stand vacated and it shall not be operative against the recovery of taxes by the defendant no. 1 Municipality". The suit is ordered to be expedited within six months and the parties are directed to cooperate to dispose of the suit. Costs will be the costs in the cause. (Emphasis supplied) ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order passed by the Trial Court the Municipality preferred Appeal from Order No. 403 of 1991 with Civil Application No. 2940 of 1991. Costs will be the costs in the cause. (Emphasis supplied) ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order passed by the Trial Court the Municipality preferred Appeal from Order No. 403 of 1991 with Civil Application No. 2940 of 1991. In the said Civil Application the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram: B. J. Shethna J.) passed the following order:"rule returnable on 11/9/1991. Mr. Nanavati learned advocate for the appellant states that the appellant is granted time upto 5/9/1991 to file undertaking as mentioned in the inpugned order. Said directions for filing undertaking before 5/9/1991 is stayed till further orders. D. S. Permitted. (Emphasis supplied)" ( 4 ) FROM the order portion extracted above passed by the trial court below Exh. 5 it is clear that apart from the undertaking the trial court had also ordered expeditious hearing of the suit within six months and both the parties were directed to cooperate so that the suit can be disposed of. In view of the above order the plaintiff filed an application Exh. 239 on April 1 1992 praying for early disposal of the suit. The application was objected by respondent no. 1 inter alia contending that since the operation of the order passed by the trial court below Exh. 5 was stayed by this Court the suit cannot be disposed of nor even be proceeded with. The learned advocate appearing for the Municipality also placed reliance on a letter written by the counsel engaged by the Municipality in this Court and contended that according to the opinion of the learned counsel for the Municipality also the trial court could not proceed with the suit since the order of the trial court was stayed by this Court. The Court upheld the contention and dismissed the application Exh. 239 by the impugned order. ( 5 ) MR. A. S. Vakil for Mr. S. B. Vakil learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by this Court is explicitly clear. In no uncertain terms this court has granted interim stay against the direction for filing undertaking by the Municipality. The direction regarding the expeditious disposal of the suit within the stipulated period of six months is not stayed by this court. S. B. Vakil learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by this Court is explicitly clear. In no uncertain terms this court has granted interim stay against the direction for filing undertaking by the Municipality. The direction regarding the expeditious disposal of the suit within the stipulated period of six months is not stayed by this court. He further submitted that the Municipality wants to take undue advantage of the situation created by it inasmuch as on the one hand it did not allow interim relief granted by the trial court against recovery of tax to be operative while on the other hand it refuses to proceed with the suit and get it finally decided. Mr. Vakil submitted that this attitude of the Municipality is deplorable and does not benefit a public authority. He submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice the trial court should be directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. ( 6 ) I find considerable force in the argument of Mr. Vakil. It is no doubt true that this court has granted stay against a direction of filing of an undertaking by the Municipality. In view of that order the petitioner cannot make any grievance either against the payment of tax or against non-filing of an undertaking by the Municipality. At the same time however the Municipality cannot refuse to proceed with the suit and to continue to recover tax indefinitely. Such interim relief is not granted by the court and obviously the petitioner can legitimately make grievance against such a course being adopted by the Municipality. ( 7 ) FOR the above reasons this revision application is allowed and the order passed by the trial court below Exh. 239 on July 18 1992 is quashed and set aside and the trial court is directed to dispose of special Civil Suit No. 77 of 1990 as expeditiously as possible and preferably before June 30 1993 Rule is made absolute with costs. Revision application allowed. .