Judgment Birendra Pd. Sinha, J The question for consideration in this case is whether the hearing of Money Suit No. 17 of 1969, filed by the petitioners in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Bhagalpur, should be stayed pending hearing of First Appeal No.620 of 1973 and its disposal. 2. The petitioners filed money Suit No.17 of 1969 for recovery of damages on the ground that the defendants had looted away the crops from the lands exclusively belonging to them. They claimed those lands on the basis of partition by metes and bounds in the year 1933. After the filing of the present money suit, the opposite party filed title Suit No. 56 of 1969 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge alleging that no partition had taken place in the year 1933 and the lands were still joint. The title suit was dismissed in the year 1973. The story of partition as propounded by the petitioners, who were defendants in the title suit, was not believed. The opposite party, plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 59 of 1969, have filed First Appeal No.620 of 1973. The petitioners filed an application, before the Court below in Money Suit No. 17 of 1969, under section 10 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying to stay the hearing of the money suit. The prayer was rejected. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that it is expedient and in the interest of justice that the money suit pending before the Court below should be stayed until First Appeal No. 620 of 1973 is disposed of by this Court. At the time of admission of this application. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had stated that they would make extra efforts to make the first appeal ready expeditiously. Learned Counsel states now that the appeal is not ready and may take some time. In the meanwhile, the money suit is likely to be heard and disposed of by the Court below. He has placed reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in Sheikh Mohammad Yasin Vs. Sheikh Md. Abdur Razzaque and has submitted that in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, this Court should stay the hearing of the money suit pending in the Court below in order to do justice between the parties. Sheikh Md. Abdur Razzaque and has submitted that in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, this Court should stay the hearing of the money suit pending in the Court below in order to do justice between the parties. It was held in the above reported case that it was competent for the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to do that justice between the parties which is warranted under the circumstances and which the necessities of a particular case require. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party has tried to distinguish this case on the ground that the present application is one under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and wants this court not to exercise its jurisdiction and pass any order. He also says that this Court should not interfere under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has also submitted that the case of Sheikh Mohammad Yasin (supra) in this Court arose out of a miscellaneous judicial case. In my opinion, these objections have no merit. 5. The present application has been filed not only under section 115 but also under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion, justice of the case requires that Money Suit No. 17 of 1969 pending in the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge V. Bhagalpur, should be stayed pending disposal of First Appeal No. 620 of 1973 in the High Court. 6. In the result, this application is allowed and the order passed by the Court below is set aside. Let a direction issue to the Court below that Money Suit No. 17 of 1969 pending before it should be stayed till the disposal of First Appeal No. 620 of 1973 by the High Court. In the circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed.