Madan, J.
(1). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.10.99 of the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 167/93 dismissing the defendant petitioner''s application filed u/s 10 CPC. The matter has come up for orders on the application filed by Shri R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the respondent on 1.5.2000 praying therein for vacation of ad interim stay order dated 31.3.2000 whereby, further proceedings pending in Civil Suit No. 167/93 before the trial Court were ordered to be stayed till further orders. This revision petition was admitted on 31.3.2000. After the notice was served. Shri R.P. Garg put appearance and filed the aforesaid application for vacation.
(2). At the time of arguments on the aforesaid application, Shri R.P. Garg learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent produced photostat copy of the certified copy of the judgment dated 8.5.2000 passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 334/90, which was filed by Jaswantlal (present defendant petitioner) against Nandlal and Ors. (present respondent plaintiffs), by which Civil Suit No. 334/90 of present petitioner for permanent injunction for restraining Nandlal and Ors. from using the roof of suit shop No. 90 for the purposes of keeping his trade materials and further for restraining from interfering with its use was dismissed after due trial.
(3). During the pendency of Suit No. 334/90 of the present defendant petitioner, Civil Suit No. 167/93 was filed by the present plaintiffs respondents for eviction of the tenant (petitioner) on the ground of personal bonafide necessity as well as default in payment of rent of the tenanted shop. This suit of landlord (respondent) was fixed for plaintiffs evidence then, the present defendant petitioner Tiled an application for staying the proceedings of the landlord''s suit for eviction till the decision of tenant''s suit No. 334/90 for permanent injunction, this application was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 29.10.99. Hence, this revision petition.
(4). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and impugned order, prima facie, I am of the considered view that the conclusions drawn by the trial Court for dismissing the defendant''s application u/s 10 CPC declining to stay the present eviction proceedings in Suit No. 167/93 till the pendency of tenant''s Suit for permanent injunction No. 334/90, do not call for any interference In this revision petition because the subject matter in issue in tenant''s (present defendant petitioner) suit is not directly and substantially in issue in landlord''s (present plaintiffs respondents) suit for eviction on the ground of personal and bonafide necessity as well as default between the same parties, and it is totally different, as is evident from a careful perusal of the judgment dated 8.5.2000 passed by the trial Court in a suit for permanent Injunction previously instituted by the tenant (defendant petitioner). That part, after the decision of the tenant''s suit vide judgment dated 8.5.2000 the tenant''s application u/s 10 CPC for staying the eviction proceedings till the disposal of his suit has also become infructuous. Moreover, in the light of the decision of this Court in Ramesh Chandra v. Smt. Kamla Devi (1), Section 10 CPC does not bar nor would necessitate stay of subsequent suit. In Ramesh Chandra''s case (supra), this Court interpreting the scope and construction of expressions "mailers in issues" u/s 10 CPC, observed that aforesaid expression has reference to entire subject matter in controversy between parties and is not equivalent to any of the question in issue. In Ramesh Chandra''s case (supra), first suit for possession and mesne profit was decreed and appeal against was pending and subsequently another suit for mesne profit was filed for period subsequent to that covered by former suit therefore, this Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the impugned order therein.
(5). As a result of the discussion made above, this civil revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated 29.10.1999 of the trial Court in civil suit No. 167/93 rejecting defendants application u/s 10, CPC, for staying the eviction proceedings till the decision of their suit No. 334/90, is upheld. Ad interim stay order dated 31.3.2000 passed by this Court in this revision petition stands vacated. Since the revision petition arises out of suit for ejectment which is pending since 1993, the trial Court is directed to expeditiously decide the suit, itself, but not beyond three months from the receipt of this order.
