Judgement ORDER :- The petitioner is the defendant. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 58 of 1992 for recovery of money. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/defendant filed an application in I.A. No. 299 of 1993 under Section 10, CPC for stay of the proceedings of the suit until final adjudication in company petition No. 80 of 1991 pending on the file of this Court. The said application was dismissed. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and also gone through the impugned order. 4. At the outset, I shall state that Section 10, CPC would not at all apply in this case, because the company petition pending before this Court cannot be termed to be a suit and therefore, Section 10, CPC cannot be invoked by the Court, in which the suit for recovery of money is pending, to stay the proceedings of the suit. 5. As per Section 10, CPC, 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. 6. The word 'suit' is important for our purpose. As per the provisions of Order 4, Rule 1, CPC every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the Court or such officer as it appoints in its behalf. Therefore, the word 'suit' ordinarily means a civil proceeding instituted by presenting a plaint. 7. In a company proceedings, no plaint is presented and hence, it cannot be regarded as a proceeding based on a suit. Therefore, when the proceedings are not based on a suit, they cannot be regarded as a trial of a suit and hence, the suit for recovery of money is pending before the trial Court could not be stayed. 8. This is very clear from the reading of Section 10 C.P.C. While interpreting the said Section, the Rajasthan High Court gave the same ruling in Punjab National Bank v. Gajendra Singh (2001 (1) Civ LR 431 (Raj)); Jaipur Vastra Vyopar Sangh Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Lal Patodia ( AIR 1970 Raj 91 ); and Ladu Lal Jain v. Manager, Bank of Baroda (1997 DNJ (Raj) 260). 9. It is now submitted that he said suit has been transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. 9. It is now submitted that he said suit has been transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. As held by the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank ( AIR 2000 SC 1535 ), the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal is exclusive and as such, the jurisdiction of civil Court or Company Court is ousted. 10. In view of the above ruling, there is no merit in this Civil Revision Petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 855 of 1997 stands dismissed.