JUDGMENT 1. Stay of proceedings would lead to suspending of limitation also. This, in nutshell is the argument raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. What is urged is that the petitioner should not be called upon to pay the interest for the period, the stay order came to be issued by this court. It is submitted that on account of the interim order passed by this court, the petitioner was disabled from taking benefit of the auction. It is submitted that not only the petitioner but even the respondents were disabled from finalising the auction proceedings. Requisite averments in this regard have been made in paragraph, 10 of the petition. It is stated that after the auction was conducted in April, 99 a writ petition came to be filed in this court. This bears No. OWP 4687 99. In this petition, following interim order came to be passed on 17th May, 1999 : ".. Mr. Sheikh prays and is granted four weeks time, to file objection. In the meanwhile, respondents will not proceed with the auction". 2. The above writ petition ultimately came to be dismissed on 15th Nov., 1999. It is in this manner contended that the petitioner be not called upon to pay the interest for the intervening period. 3. This writ petition is pending with this court since March 2000, This was admitted on 3rd Nov., 2000. On this date, both the sides were represented. Respondents were directed to file counter by 14th Nov., 2000. This has not been done by the respondents. The limited argument as to the effect of interim order passed by this Court is required to be examined. 4. The affect of stay of proceedings has been dealt with in Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 54 at page 285. It has been stated as under: "Ordinarily the grounds specified in the statuture for suspending limitations will be regarded as exclusive, but it is equally well settled that, where such special circumstances do exist, limitations may be suspended on grounds not so specified11. 5. It had been stated that "when the running of the statutory period of limitation is suspended or toiled, the limitation period is arrested, and, when the time of suspension is over, the statutory period of limitations commences to run again". At page 286, the affect of an order passed by a court has been adverted to. 5. It had been stated that "when the running of the statutory period of limitation is suspended or toiled, the limitation period is arrested, and, when the time of suspension is over, the statutory period of limitations commences to run again". At page 286, the affect of an order passed by a court has been adverted to. It is observed that: "When the commencement of an action is stayed by an order of a court of judge, the time of the continuance of the stay is not a part of the time limited for the commencement of the action". 6. This statement of law is based on the ratio of following decisions: i) Lincoln Joint Stock Land Bank vs. Barnes, 8 N.W. 2d 545, 143, Neb. 58. ii) Certiorari denied Niklaus vs. Lincoln Joint Stock Land Bank of Lincoln, Neb., 64 S.Ct. 191, 320 U.S. 781,88 D.Ed. 169, rehearing denied 64 S.Ct. 259, 320 U.S. 814, 88 L. Ed. 492. 7. Similar statement of law is found summarised at page 278 of Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 54. In paragraph 247, it is stated that: "The pendency of other legal proceedings ordinarily tolls limitations on a cause of action where such proceedings prevent enforcement of the remedy by action". 8. It is stated that "where a person is prevented from exercising his legal remedy by the pendency of legal proceedings, the time during which he is thus prevented should not be counted against him in determining whether limitations have barred his right". 9. If the pendency of legal proceedings have the effect of arresting the period of limitations, then the same principle would be attracted to the facts of this case. The facts be noticed in brief. 10. The petitioner was the highest bidder in a bid conducted by the respondents. He was supposed to make the payments of Rs.123.17 lakhs in the following manner: i) On or before 21.5.99 -- Rs.30,75,000/- ii) On or before 21.6.99 -- Rs.31,00,000/- iii) On or before 21.7.99 -- Rs.31,00,000/- iv) On or before 21.8.99 -- Rs.30,50,000/- . 11. Petitioner submits that he deposited the first instalment on 10th May, 99. The second instalment was paid on 12th July, 99. The third instalment could not be deposited on account of the interim order having been passed in writ petition OWP No. 468/99 noticed above. 11. Petitioner submits that he deposited the first instalment on 10th May, 99. The second instalment was paid on 12th July, 99. The third instalment could not be deposited on account of the interim order having been passed in writ petition OWP No. 468/99 noticed above. It is submitted by the petitioner that he has deposited the remaining amount also. This was done after the said order was vacated. All that he submits is that he should not be called upon to pay the interest on the amount during the period for which the stay order passed by this Court was in operation. It be submitted that the very right to have benefit of auction had come doubtful. It was in these circumstances the payment was not made. 12. I am of the opinion that as respondents be restrained by an order of this court from finalisation of auction proceedings. Therefore, no period for which the stay operated, the petitioner cannot be called upon to pay the report. Stay legal proceedings would result in arresting the period for which the petitioner was supposed to pay interest. This petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to the relief. This is to the effect that for the period, the stay order was in operation, he would not called upon to pay the interest. Disposed of as such.