1. As regards the power of this Court Under Order 45, Rule 13 of the Code to stay further proceedings in the suit as distinguished from proceedings in execution, we are not prepared to dissent from the view taken in the case of Laliteswar Singh v. Bhabeswar Singh, (1909) 1 IC 812. That decision has been followed in Ram Narain v. Harnam Das, 1919 All 14, and though referred to in other cases does not appear to have been ever dissented from. But it is now well settled that apart from the aforesaid provision of the law there is abundant inherent power in this Court to stay such proceedings in a suitable case. One of the latest cases in which such inherent power has been recognised is the case of Sarat Kumar Roy v. Official Assignee Bengal, 1931 Cal 79. And indeed from what the Judicial Committee have said on more occasions than one as regards the advisability on the part of this Court to deal with matters of this description, at least in the first instance, it would seem that such power has been assumed. On the merits, however, we are not inclined to take the view that expediency or ends of justice requires any order for stay being made. We are not satisfied that any irreparable injury will result from our non-interference, and on the other hand think that it is desirable from several points of view that such proceedings should be allowed to take their own course. The application is dismissed with costs three gold mohurs.