ORDER S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.12.2003 passed by the trial court and the order dated 24.12.2003 passed by District Judge, Jaunpur affirming the order passed by trial court.
2. Plaintiff filed Suit No. 90 of 2002 for cancellation of sale deed and for permanent injunction which was decreed ex parte on 14.11.2003. An application filed by defendant to set aside ex parte decree and to restore suit to its original number was entertained by the trial court. Trial court granted interim order dated 20.12.2003 staying execution of the ex parte decree. A revision preferred against said order was also dismissed by order dated 24.12.2003.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner urged that trial court while passing the impugned order acted illegally by granting interim order staying execution of ex parte decree and as such order is liable to be quashed.
5. Considered arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and materials on record.
6. A proceeding arising out of Order IX, Rule 13 of C.P.C. is a miscellaneous proceeding as defined under Section 141, C.P.C. and the procedure of C.P.C. as prescribed for suit can be made applicable to the suit proceeding and as such the Court entertaining application under Order IX, Rule 13 of C.P.C. has every power to grant stay or injunction.
7. There is no illegality in the impugned orders. Orders were rightly passed in accordance with law.
8. Writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, I direct trial court to decide restoration application within two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.