Short Note : 1. The plaintiff-applicant has filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior, its number being 54-A of 1975. 2. Thereafter Sanjeev and Rajeev minors through their next friend Pratibha Devi and Bhaskar Rao have brought another suit for declaration title against the plaintiff-applicant. This suit has been brought in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II. The number of this suit is 77-A of 1976. 3. Both the aforesaid suits are in respect of the same house. 4. That in the ejectment suit an issue was raised by the Court to the effect that whether the present suit deserves to be stayed until decision of civil suit No. 77-A of 1976? 5. This issue has been decided by the impugned order in favour of the defendant and it has been ordered that the judgment of the present suit (ejectment suit) will remain stayed until decision of the declaratory suit. Aggrieved by this order the present revision has been filed. 6. Held : Admittedly, section 10 is not applicable to the present situation because section 10 deals with the question of stay of subsequent suit and not with the question of stay of previously instituted suit. 7. This brings me to the question of stay under inherent powers. Stay under inherent powers can be ordered only when stay is necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The power to stay under inherent powers has to be sparingly exercised. In both the aforesaid cases parties are different. Subject matter of the dispute is also different inasmuch as in the former suit the question is that of ejectment from the suit property. Question of title is foreign to ejectment suit. No case is made out for stay of ejectment suit. Merely because subsequent suit for declaration of title has been brought decision of the ejectment suit cannot be stayed. That apart if the defendant and his sons Sanjeev and Rajeev succeed in civil suit No. 77-A of 1976, then they can claim back the possession if lost in ejectment suit. 8. In the impugned order there appears to be implicit reliance on the dictum of 1977 JLJ SN 82 (S.C. Barat (Dr.) v. J. Jacob) without examining the question of applicability of the ratio to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. In the impugned order there appears to be implicit reliance on the dictum of 1977 JLJ SN 82 (S.C. Barat (Dr.) v. J. Jacob) without examining the question of applicability of the ratio to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The case before this Court in the case of S.C. Barat, the subsequent suit was for a specific performance of the contract. Suit No.77-A of 1976 is not for the purpose. Therefore, the ratio of the case of S.C. Bharat (supra) is not applicable to the present situation. The present case falls within the ratio of the case reported in 1960 JLJ 61 , Radheshyam v. Kashinath, 1977 JLJ SN 82, distinguished. 1960 JLJ 61 and AIR 1968 SC 647 , relied on. Revision allowed.