IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2195 of 2008 MT. ABHA RANI DEY Versus MD. SULEMAN & ORS ----------- 2. 13.1.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for stay of the suit under section 10 C.P.C. on the ground that the proceedings of the eviction suit filed against the petitioner cannot be made to await on the ground of pendency of the earlier decree of suit filed by the petitioner for seeking a decree of specific performance of contract submits that the court below has committed jurisdictional error. Counsel for the petitioner, in this context has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Rajkumar Prasad vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi, reported in 1997(2) PLJR 649, to support his submission that if in the eviction suit and in the first appeal pending before this Court a common issue was involved the eviction suit had been stayed. In the opinion of this court the question begging for answer would still be whether in the present case by merely 2 seeking a decree for specific performance can the petitioner even claim to be a title holder till such decree is passed in his favour. On the other hand, there is no dispute that the petitioner has already admitted himself to be tenant of Hira Singh from whom the present plaintiff of the eviction suit has purchased the property. Therefore, while status of the plaintiff opposite party of being the owner of the suit property on the basis of a registered document is already established, the case of the petitioner of being title holder still lies in limbo. Obviously the two suits do not have any identity of the issues and therefore, the court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting such frivolous prayer of the petitioner for staying the subsequent eviction suit on the ground of pendency of the aforementioned suit seeking a decree of specific performance. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ratio of Rajkumar's case supra is also wholly misplaced in as much as the earlier suit with regard to title of tenanted 3 premises had already been decided and only thereafter an eviction suit had been filed. That being so, there is no merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/