JUDGMENT Defendant No.4-applicant has directed this revision against the order dated 20.12.2000 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Dhar in C.S. 178A/2000 thereby directing hearing of IA No.2, an application filed by non-applicant-plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction in his favour in a suit the hearing of which is stayed under the provisions of S. 10 of the CPC. LC for the respondent, relying on the decision of this Court in case of Mahila Grah Udyog Lijjat Papad v. Usha Sontake [ 1999 (1) MPJR 130 ] has submitted that if a suit is stayed under the provisions of S. 10, CPC, the trial in such suit shall not proceed until the disposal of the' earlier suit. But there is no bar against passing of the interlocutory orders of urgent nature such as granting temporary injunction of appointment of receiver etc. In view of the ratio of law decided by this Court incase of Mahila Grah Udyog Lijjat Papad (supra), I do not find that the trial Court has committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in fixing the case for hearing on IA No.2, an application for temporary injunction filed by the non-applicant plaintiff in a suit stayed under S. 10 of the CPC. No interference is necessary in the impunged order of the trial Court exercising jurisdiction under section 115 of the CPC, Consequently; this revision is devoid of any merit and substance, I decline its admission and dismiss the same summarily.