IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.675 of 2007 ----------- Satish Singh, son of Amar Singh, resident of Mohalla Daldali Bazar, Maunabanganj, P.S. and P.O. Chapra Town, District Saran at Chapra …Defendant-Petitioner. Versus Sunil Kumar, son of Madangopal alias Bachchan Prasad, resident of Mohalla Daldali Bazar, Maunabanganj, P.S. & P.O. Chapra Town, District Saran at Chapra, presently residing at Pili Kothi, Lah Bazar, Chapra, P.O. and P.S. Chapra, District Saran at Chapra. ….Plaintiff-Opposite . Party. --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate. For the Opp. Party : None. ------- 02/ 16.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 07.02.2007 passed in Eviction Suit No. 06 of 2006, by which learned 1st Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chapra refused to stay the proceeding of the said suit during the pendency of Title Suit No. 207 of 2006 filed by the defendant-petitioner. 3. Eviction Suit No.06 of 2006 was filed by the sole plaintiff-opposite party on 06.03.2006 for eviction of the sole defendant-petitioner on the ground of his bona fide personal requirement. In the said suit, the defendant-petitioner appeared and contested . 4. Title Suit No. 207 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner on 15.06.2006 against the opposite party and his father for specific performance of contract with respect to the same suit land. In the said suit, the opposite party, who was defendant of that 2 suit, had also appeared. 5. It transpires that on 18.09.2006, the defendant- petitioner filed an application in Eviction Suit No. 06 of 2006 for staying its proceeding during the pendency of the subsequently filed Title Suit No. 207 of 2006. This application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 07.02.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 6. The law is well-settled in this regard that the proceeding of the eviction suit cannot be stayed during the pendency of any title suit with regard to the same properties and between the same parties, even if the eviction suit is subsequent. Furthermore, section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure also clearly provides that in case of two title suits, proceeding of the subsequently filed title suit can be stayed during the pendency of the previously instituted title suit between the same parties with respect to the same properties. 7. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)