A. N. DIVECHA, J. ( 1 ) THE order passed by the learned civil Judge (S. D.) at Vadodara on 15th july 1993 below the application at exhibit-106 in Special Civil Suit No. 725 of 1991 is under challenge in this revisional application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (the code for brief ). By his impugned order, the learned trial Judge directed the application at Exhibit-105 in the same suit to be heard first. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this revisional application may be summarised thus : The present petitioner filed- one suit against the respondents herein in the Court of the Civil Judge (S. D.) at Vadodara for partition and possession of his share in the properties mentioned therein. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the parties in this proceeding as they have been arrainged in the suit proceeding, that is, the petitioner as the plaintiff and the respondents as the defendants. The suit came to be registered as Special Civil suit No. 725 of 1991. It appears that the plaintiff therein took out one application for interim relief and another application for appointment of a Commissioner for inventory. Those applications were taken on record as Exhibits 5 and 6 in the suit proceeding. It appears that, with a view to non-suiting the plaintiff at the threshold, the defendants made one application on 11th December 1991 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. It appears to have; been taken on record as Exhibit 16 in the suit proceeding. The plaintiff appears to have filed his reply thereto on 9th June 1992. It appears to have been taken cm record as exhibit 30 in the suit proceeding.- It appears that the said application was not pressed and it came to be disposed of accordingly. It appears that in the meantime the applications at Exhibits 5 and 6 were hotly contested. By his separate orders passed on the same day on 7th August 1992 below the applications at Exhibits 5 and 6 in Special civil Suit No. 725 of 1991, the learned trial Judge inter alia granted the interim relief of maintenance of status quo with respect to the subject-matter of the litigation but rejected the application for appointment of a Commissioner for inventory. The order below the application at Exhibit-5 in the suit proceeding aggrieved the defendants and they challenged it in appeal before this court by means of Appeal from Order no. 464 of 1992. The order below exhibit-6 therein aggrieved the plaintiff and he questioned its correctness by means of Civil Revision Application-No. 1253 of 1992 by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings before this court, the plaintiff moved an application purporting to be under Order 39 Rule 2a of the Code alleging breach of the order of injunction -on the part of the defendants. It appears to have been taken on record as Exhibit-89 in the suit proceeding. Thereafter, it appears that the defendants made one more application on 5th May 1993 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code. It appears to have been taken on record as Exhibit-105 in the suit proceeding. It appears that the plaintiff filed his reply thereto on 12th June 1993. It appears that in order to expedite the hearing of the application at Exhibit-105 in the record of the suit proceeding, the defendants made one more application for the purpose on 28th June 1993. It appears to have been taken on record as exhibit-106. Thereafter, by his order passed therebelow on 15th July 1993, the learned trial Judge directed the application at Exhibit-105 to be heard first. It has aggrieved the plaintiff. He has therefore invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by means of this revisional application for questioning its correctness. ( 3 ) I find considerable force in the submission urged before me by Dr. Singhvi for the plaintiff to the effect that a party in contempt cannot be heard in defence till he purges himself of such contempt. As rightly submitted by Dr. Singhvi, this rule has been enunciated under the Common Law and Courts in india have more or less adopted it. ( 4 ) IN this connection, a reference deserves to be made to the ruling of the probate Division in the case of Leavis v. Leavis reported in 1921 p. at page 299. In that case, the husband was found to have been guilty of non-compliance with the order passed by the Divorce Division in favour of his wife. He thereafter took out a summons for stay of the suit. In that case, the husband was found to have been guilty of non-compliance with the order passed by the Divorce Division in favour of his wife. He thereafter took out a summons for stay of the suit. Since he was held to be in contempt for non- compliance of the aforesaid order passed in favour of his wife, the Court, in exercise of its discretion, refused to permit him to proceed with his application. The aforesaid English ruling does support Dr. Singhvi for the plaintiff and he has rightly relied on it. ( 5 ) ANOTHER ruling relied on by Dr. Singhvi is one in the case of Hadkinson v. Hadkinson reported in 1952 (2) All england reports at page 567. The aforesaid principle appears to have been reiterated therein. ( 6 ) SHRI Sanghi for the defendants has urged that such rule is not invariable and it need not be enforced strictly. Shri sanghi is right so far as that part of his submission is concerned. Exception to that rule would be when the order the breach of which is complained of is without jurisdiction. I am fortified in my view by the binding Division Bench ruling of the High Court of Bombay in the case of David Sasoon Ezekiel v. Najia noori Reuben reported in AIR 1931 bombay at page 402. It has been held therein:"the general rule that a party in contempt is not entitled to be heard does not apply to a case in which the order for which the breach of contempt is alleged is challenged on the ground of want of jurisdiction. " ( 7 ) IT is not the case of the defendants that the order of injunction the breach of which is alleged against them was in any manner without jurisdiction. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the code is in the nature of a defence to the suit. The plaintiff has by means of his application at Exhibit-89 on the record of the case alleged the breach of the order of maintenance of status quo in the nature of an injunction passed by the learned trial judge below the application at Exhibit-5 in the suit proceeding on 7th August 1992. The defendants have made an application at Exhibit-105 for non-suiting the plaintiff as a defence to the suit. The defendants have made an application at Exhibit-105 for non-suiting the plaintiff as a defence to the suit. In view of the aforesaid provision of law, the defendants have to purge themselves of contempt before they are heard in defence. ( 8 ) IN view of my aforesaid discussion, i am of the opinion that the learned trial judge was not justified in directing the application at Exhibit-105 in the suit proceeding to be heard first unless the fate of the application for contempt at exihibit-89 was decided. The impugned order below the application at Exhibit- 106 in the suit proceeding cannot therefore be sustained in law. It has to be quashed and set aside. ( 9 ) IN the result, this revisional application is accepted. The order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) at vadodara on 15th July 1993 below the application at Exhibit-106 in Special civil Suit No. 725 of 1991 is quashed and set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. ( 10 ) AT the oral request of the learned counsel for the defendants, the enforcement, implementation and operation of this judgment of mine is stayed for a period of 12 (twelve) weeks from today to enable the aggrieved defendants to question its correctness by means of an appropriate proceeding before the Apex Court. Rule made absolute. .