IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.662 of 2007 Ganesh Sao son of late Meghan Sao, resident of Mohalla Ghughari Tanr, P.O. Chand Chaura, P.S. Civil Line, District Gaya………….......………Defendant-Petitioner Versus Smt. Sonamati Devi wife of Sri Ganesh Mahton, resident of Mohalla Ghughari Tanr, P.S. Civil Line,District Gaya. ………Plaintiff-Opposite party For the petitioner : Mr. Gopal Jee, Advocate. For the opposite party : None. ----------- 02/ 15.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the sole defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 24.02.2007 by which learned Munsif-I, Gaya refused to stay the proceeding of Eviction Suit No.22 of 2005 filed by the sole plaintiff-opposite party during the pendency of Title Suit No.68 of 2005, which was filed by the defendant-petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not in dispute that Title Suit No.68 of 2005 was filed earlier by the petitioner against the opposite party for declaration that sale deed dated 17.06.2002 was with respect to nagdi parti land of Cadastral Survey Plot No.151/420 and new Plot No.3268 and also for restraining the defendant to interfere in his peaceful possession of the said land. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it was only thereafter that the sole opposite party filed Eviction Suit No.22 of 2005 for eviction of the petitioner from the 2 same premises, which was described in Schedule-I of the plaint, hence the parties being the same and the suit premises also being the same, the subsequent suit should not be allowed to proceed. 5. From the arguments as well as the materials on record it is apparent that the subject matter, issues involved as well as the reliefs in both the suits are completely different as the subject matter and issues of the earlier suit was title, whereas the subject matter and issues of the subsequent suit was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, whereas the relief in the earlier suit was declaration of deed of gift as void whereas the relief in the subsequent suit was eviction on the grounds mentioned therein. 6. The law is also well settled in this regard that the provision of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply in a suit for eviction, if the earlier suit was a title suit. The learned court below has passed its order also after considering several decisions of this court as well as of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard, which are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, 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. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )