JUDGMENT 1. - This is a plaintiff's revision against the order of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Jodhpur, dated 5.8.1985 by which he has stayed the proceedings of the suit till the disposal of another suit previously filed by the plaintiff against the same defendants. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. for the disposal of this revision, the relevant facts may be briefly stated. The plaintiff Udai Raj had purchased the suit house from Shri Pritam Surana through his natural guardian Niranjan Surana. The defendant was a tenant in this house before this purchase and he was informed by the previous landlord & started paying rent to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff Udai Raj filed a suit before the learned Addl. civil Judge. No. 2, Jodhpur being Suit No. 539/81 praying for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of reasonable and bonafide personal necessity. In that suit, the defendant denied the transfer and the attornment to the plaintiff whereupon an issue was framed to the effect whether plaintiff had purchased the suit property from Pritam surana on 1.5.1981 and the defendant acknowledging the plaintiff as his landlord paid him rent and thus the relationship of landlord and tenant came in existence between the plaintiff and the defendant. 4. While this suit was pending, the plaintiff filed another suit before the learned Addl. Munsif and Judicial magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur asking for ejectment of the defendant on the ground that the defendant had denied the plaintiff's title and was liable to ejectment under Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (hereinafter called 'the Act'). In this suit, the defendant denied the fact that he had denied the plaintiff's title in the earlier suit and on this an issue was framed it the effect whether the defendant had denied the plaintiff's title in the earlier suit and, therefore, was liable to ejectment under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act. The plaintiff's evidence in this suit was over and while the case was pending for the defendant's evidence, the defendant after a few adjournments, moved an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC praying for the stay of the proceedings of the later suit on the ground that the suit was between the same parties and involved substantially the same question as in the earlier suit. The plaintiff contested this application and after hearing the parties, the learned Munsif directed stay of the proceedings of the later suit by his order dated 5.8.1985. Hence this revision. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner is that although the parties in the two suits are the same and the premises are also the same, the question involved in the two suits is not directly and substantially the same. As a matter of facts, the second suit is based on an altogether different ground, which was not at all an issue in the first suit and, therefore, the learned Munsif was not justified in staying the proceedings of the second suit. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant-non-petitioner urged that the question involved in the second suit was substantially the same inasmuch as for the decision on issue framed in the second suit, the question of title of the plaintiff was involved which was directly and substantially involved in the earlier suit and, therefore, the learned Munsif was within his jurisdiction to direct the stay of the proceedings in the second suit. 6. I have applied my consideration to the rival contentions. I am of the opinion that the petitioner's contention must be accepted. In the first suit, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had denied the plaintiff's title and this gave rise to the issue whether the plaintiff had become the landlord and the defendant had attorned to him. In the second suit, the defendant has not at all denied the plaintiff's title rather he has denied the fact that in the earlier suit, he had denied the plaintiff's title and that has given rise to an issue whether the defendant had denied that the plaintiff's title in the earlier suit. These two points are, therefore, altogether different and the question involved in them is not the same or substantially the same. As a matter of fact, the second suit is based on a plea raised by the defendant in the first suit and which has given another and different cause of action to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, merely because the parties are the same of the two suits relate to the same premises, neither Section 10 is applicable nor the learned Munsif was justified in staying the proceedings by recourse to Section 151 CPC. In these circumstances, merely because the parties are the same of the two suits relate to the same premises, neither Section 10 is applicable nor the learned Munsif was justified in staying the proceedings by recourse to Section 151 CPC. (I am not able to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that in the second suit, the question of title of the plaintiff is substantially involved. As a matter of fact, as already stated above, in the second suit, the plaintiff's title is not at all in dispute and what is disputed is whether the defendant had denied the plaintiff's title in the earlier suit. The decision of the second suit would in any way be affected by the decision of the earlier suit. In these circumstances, I am clearly of the opinion that the learned Munsif acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in directing stay of the proceedings of the second suit. 7. The revision is, accordingly, accepted and the order of the learned MUnsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur dated 5.8.1985 is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur on 27.1.1986 and the learned Munsif will proceed to decide the suit in question in accordance with law.Revision allowed. *******