HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3676 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the tenant of premises owned by the respondent. The latter filed O.S. Nos.136 of 2008 and 565 of 2008 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nidadavol, against the petitioner for eviction, recovery of possession and arrears of rent, respectively. Through a common judgment, the Trial Court decreed the suits. The petitioner filed A.S. No.58 of 2010 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, against the decree for eviction. He has also obtained an order of stay in the appeal. 2. The petitioner filed O.S No.207 of 2009 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale said to have been executed by the respondent. In view of this development, the petitioner filed I.A. No.802 of 2011 in A.S. No.58 of 2010 with a prayer to stay further proceedings in the appeal till O.S. No.207 of 2009 is disposed of. 3. The application was opposed by the respondent. 4. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 02-08-2011. Hence, this revision. 5. Heard Sri J. Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. It may be true that the subject matter of A.S. No.58 of 2010 on the one hand and O.S. No.207 of 2009 on the other is the same property. However, the relief in the suit that gave rise to A.S. No.58 of 2010 is the one for eviction, whereas the relief prayed in O.S. No.207 of 2009 is the one for specific performance of an agreement of sale. 7. Section 10 CPC can be invoked only when the relief claimed in both the proceedings is similar or interconnected with each other. Assuming that the prayer in one of the proceedings had a direct bearing upon the other, the petitioner could, at the most, have prayed for stay of O.S No.207 of 2009. Section 10 CPC provides that it is only the proceedings in the subsequent suit that must be stayed. The petitioner wanted the relief exactly in the opposite direction. The Trial Court has taken a correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J October 28, 2011. KTL