Short Note : The material facts giving rise to this revision petition briefly are as follows: The petitioner instituted a suit against the opponents for declaration and injunction. The suit was resisted by the opponents, but the trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal, the lower appellate Court, by its impugned order, allowed the appeal and, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, remanded the case to the trial Court for deciding it along with COS No. 88A of 1970 instituted by the opponents Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. Held : Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. The lower appellate Court has directed the trial Court to decide the suit instituted by the petitioner along with a subsequently instituted suit, registered as COS No. 88A of 1970 by the opponents. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the suit, which was subsequently instituted by the opponents, raised certain issues, which arose for consideration before the lower appellate Court, the provisions of section 10 CPC could not be invoked as COS No. 88A of 1970 was a subsequently instituted suit. The suit instituted by the petitioner, which was an earlier suit, could not be stayed under the provisions of section 10 CPC. The lower appellate Court was thus bound to decide the appeal on merits, and by failing to decide the appeal, it has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside under section 115 CPC. Revision allowed.