IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20528 of 2011 Ashok Ram Mahuri & Anr Versus Ajay Kumar ---------------------------------- 02. 25.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The defendant in eviction suit has filed this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorari for passing the order dated 19.09.2011 by Munsif III, Gaya in Eviction Suit No.2 of 2008 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the C.P.C. for stay of eviction suit during the pendency of Title Suit No.366 of 2010 has been rejected. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner who is defendant in eviction suit has filed this Title Suit No.366 of 2010 for specific performance of contract against the vendor of the plaintiff and, therefore, the eviction suit should be stayed during the pendency of the said title suit for specific performance of contract. So far Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned, as has been held by the Apex court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010)8 SCC 329, it is not applicable because the dispute is purely private dispute regarding the tenancy. So far the stay of eviction suit is concerned, this High Court in the case of Sri Niawah Singh vs. 2 Sri Chandradeo Singh, reported in 2006(4) P.L.J.R. 129, has clearly laid down that the eviction suit cannot be stayed on the ground that suit for specific performance of contract is pending. A Division Bench of this Court also in A.I.R. 1999 Patna 103(Smt. Tara Devi vs. Smt. Kamla Gupta & Others) has held that the earlier suit cannot be stayed on the ground that subsequent suit is pending. Admittedly, in the present case, the eviction suit is of the year 2008 and the suit for specific performance of contract has been filed in year 2010. Therefore, in view of the Division Bench decision referred to above, the earlier suit cannot be stayed because of pendency of the subsequent suit. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)