ORDER R.S. Garg, J. 1. By the impugned order, the Court below has rejected the plaintiff's application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, observing that as the proceedings of the suit were stayed under section 10 CPC, because of the earlier instituted suit No. 20-A/83, the Court would have no jurisdiction to hear and decide an application for grant of an ad interim injuction. In the opinion of this Court, the Court has not appreciated the legal provisions and impact and effect of section 10 CPC. Section 10 provides that 'No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court'. The explanation appended to section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action. The key words in section 10 are 'No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit', if the Court finds that the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they claim title, the Court as a rule of prudence, to avoid conflicting decrees, stays the proceedings in the subsequent suit. Stay of the proceeding in the subsequent suit is only in relation to the trial of the suit. Applications for correction of the records, appointment of the receiver, grant of injunction, attachment of the property or such other application which have nothing to do with the trial of the suit or which have nothing to do with the progress of the suit can be decided by the Court. 2. Applications for correction of the records, appointment of the receiver, grant of injunction, attachment of the property or such other application which have nothing to do with the trial of the suit or which have nothing to do with the progress of the suit can be decided by the Court. 2. Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may if it is so prescribed, - (a) issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why he should not give security for his appearance and if he fails to comply with any order for security commit him to the civil prison; (b) direct the defendant to furnish security to produce any property belonging to him and place the same at the disposal of the Court or under the attachment of any property; (c) grant a temporary injuction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty thereof the civil prison and order that his property be attached and sold; (d) appoint a receiver of any property and enforce the performance of his duties by attaching and selling his property; (e) make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient. 3. Part VI clearly shows that the proceedings under section 94 are supplemental proceedings. The Court has to try those proceedings to prevent ends of justice from being defeated or to avoid abuse of the process of law. In the supplemental proceedings, the Court can issue a warrant of arrest, may attach the property, may direct the defendant to furnish security, to produce any property belonging to him, the Court may grant injunction and in case of disobedience may commit such person to civil prison or may order attachment of his property and may direct it to be sold. The Court may appoint a receiver of any property and enforce performance of his duties by attachment and sale of the property. The Court has power to make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient. 4. The Court may appoint a receiver of any property and enforce performance of his duties by attachment and sale of the property. The Court has power to make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient. 4. What appears to be just and convenient to the Court, if is in relation to the trial of the suit, then the Court would not pass any order because the trial of the suit, because of stay granted under section 10 CPC has already been stayed. If the Court comes to the conclusion that by trying and supplemental proceeding it is not proceeding with the trial of the suit, but is trying to maintain status quo or is trying to pass such other order which is just and convenient in the opinion of the Court, then the Court has absolute jurisdiction to pass such orders, though the trial of the suit has already been stayed under section 10 CPC. 5. Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 provide that in particular circumstances, the Court can grant injunction. The Chapter relates to grant of the temporary injunction and passing of interlocutory orders. Rule 1 provides the categories of cases in which temporary injunction may be granted, while Rule 2 provides that an injunction may be granted in favour of a party to restrain repetition or continuance of breach. The grant of an injunction by the Court would certainly be not a step in aid in the trial of the suit. By an interim order, the Court only directs that the property in dispute, if in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit or is likely to be wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, the court can grant an interim order. The Court also grants an injunction in case where the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property to defraud the creditors. If such an injuction is granted by the Court, this again would not be a step-in-aid on the trial of the suit. The Court also grants an injunction in case where the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property to defraud the creditors. If such an injuction is granted by the Court, this again would not be a step-in-aid on the trial of the suit. Where the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise causes injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court can again grant an injunction against the defendant and this grant would not be a step-in-aid in the trial of the suit where the Court is satisfied that the defendant is committing breach of contract or by his act is causing any injury of any kind to the plaintiff, then Court can again grant an injunction in favour of the party claiming it. Then again the action would not be step-in-aid in the suit. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the grant of an interlocutory order directing to maintain status quo or to grant status quo ante would amount to a step-in-aid or would amount to trial of the suit. The trial Court without appreciating the distinction between a supplemental proceeding and the trial has refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law. If for example the Court grants an injunction in favour of the plaintiff that the defendant should not dispossess him during the pendency of the suit, then nothing restrains the Court from coming to a final conclusion that on the date of suit, the plaintiff was not in possession. In such a case, despite grant of an injunction in supplemental proceedings, the Court would have jurisdiction to dismiss the suit. Any finding recorded on this application would not bind the Court from coming to a different conclusion at the time of disposal of the suit. This supplemental proceeding in any manner cannot be said to be such proceedings which have a trapping of trying the suit itself. 6. The order passed by the Court below is set aside. The Court below is directed to hear and decide the application on its own merits. It is made clear that the defendant shall be free to raise all legal objections which are permissible to him under the law. The appeal is allowed. No orders as to costs. Parties are directed to remain present before the trial Court on 4.8.1997. The Court below is directed to hear and decide the application on its own merits. It is made clear that the defendant shall be free to raise all legal objections which are permissible to him under the law. The appeal is allowed. No orders as to costs. Parties are directed to remain present before the trial Court on 4.8.1997. The Registry is directed to remit the records to the Court below immediately so as to reach the said Court on or before 4.8.97. Appeal allowed