Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The plaintiff is the petitioner before this court. In the proceedings before the trial Court, an application under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by defendant No.2. It was claimed that some of the issues which were involved for adjudication in the proceedings before the trial court were also the subject matter of adjudication in a Regular Second Appeal between the parties before the High Court. Consequently, it was claimed that proceedings in the suit be stayed. 2. Vide order dated November 18,2005, passed by the trial court, the aforesaid application filed by defendant No.2 was dismissed. It appears from the record that the aforesaid order has not been challenged by defendant No.2. 3. However, later on an order dated August 21,2006 has been passed by the trial court whereby the proceedings in the suit have been adjourned sine die taking note of the fact that the regular Second Appeal between the parties involving the adjudication of the issues which were subject matter of adjudication before the trial court was still pending. 4. The aforesaid order dated August 21,2006 is the subject matter of challenge by the petitioner before this court. Shri Shailendra Jain, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondent No.2 has very fairly stated that he has no objection if the order dated August 21,2006 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court for determination afresh of the controversy between the parties. Shri shailendra Jain has also sought a liberty to defendant No.2 to challenge the order dated November 18,2005 in accordance with law. Keeping in view the fair stand adopted by Shri shailendra Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, the present petition is allowed and the order dated August 21,2006 passed by the trial court is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh determination of the controversy as to whether the proceedings in the suit are liable to be stayed or not keeping in view the fact that an earlier order dated November 18,2005 had been passed by the trial court. The defendant-respondent No.2 would also be at liberty to challenge the order dated November 18,2005 in accordance with law. 5. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on May 9, 2007.