YAMIN, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order of learned District Judge, Banswara dated 17. 5. 1995 by which he allowed the application under Section 10 of the CPC filed by the defendants and stayed proceedings of the suit No. 9/94 till the conclusion of the proceedings pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Banswara under the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred as `the Act of 1974' ).
(2.) FACTS leading to the revision are that the plaintiff petitioner filed a civil suit for recovery of some amount against the defendants respondents. The plaintiff petitioner before filing the suit No. 9/94 had filed an application under the Act of 1974 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Banswara which was registered as proceed-ing No. 892/90. The defendants moved application under Section 10 CPC to stay the proceedings of the suit saying that since the plaintiff had started proceedings under Section 13 of the Act of 1974, the suit may be stayed. Learned District Judge vide impugned order stayed the suit under Section 10 of CPC. The revision was admitted on 12. 7. 1995 and notices were issued to the respondents defendants who have not chosen to appear. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits and gone through the order of learned District Judge. A very small but important question involved in this case is whether the proceedings pending before a prescribed authority for recovery of dues of a bank can be termed as a suit and, therefore, the suit could be stayed by the trial court as it has been done in this case? I have given my anxious consideration to the question. First of all it is necessary to go through Section 10 of CPC. It is as follows:- " 10. Stay of suit.-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 word "suit" is very important for our purpose. It has not been defined in Civil Procedure Code but as per provisions of Order 4 Rule 1, every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the Court or such officer as it appoints in this be-half. The word "suit" ordinarily means a civil proceeding instituted by presentation of a plaint. In proceedings under Section 13 of the Act of 1974, no plaint is filed 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 any suit and hence could not have been stayed by learned subordinate court.
(3.) MY view that the proceedings are not a suit is fortified by some such similar interpretations in different citations. In Jaipur Vastra Vyopar Sangh Ltd. (In liquidation) and another vs. Shyam Sunder Lal Patodia (1), it was observed that a proceeding which is not required to be treated as a suit under any other law, is not a suit. The matter related to Companies Act. The question was whether an application un-der Section 543 of the Companies Act would be a suit. It was held that it cannot be said that it will be a suit within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. In Ladu Lal Jain & Ors. vs. Manager, Bank of Baroda & Ors. (2), it was held that no revision or appeal lies against an order of the Prescribed Authority under the Act of 1974 as the Prescribed Authority cannot be termed as subordinate civil court and it was a tribunal with limited jurisdiction and its orders are neither appealable nor revisable. In view of this observation the necessary result will be that the proceeding pending before the Prescribed Authority cannot be termed as a suit. In another judgment Smt. Maina Kumari vs. Punjab National Bank, Chittorgarh (3), the `prescribed Authority" under the Act of 1974 was considered and it was observed that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority obtains a colour of decree for limited purpose of its execution by way of legal fiction and this authority cannot be termed as a civil court. Its proceedings are not judicial but only quasi Judicial. Learned trial Judge relying on Daulat Ram vs. Punjab National Bank (4), treated the proceedings pending before the prescribed authority as a civil suit. This view of the learned subordinate Judge was not correct because what has been said in the said citation was that the Prescribed Authority was treated as a civil court. It does not mean that the proceedings pending with him would be termed as a civil suit as envisaged in Section 10 of CPC. ;