This is a revision directed against the order dated 5.9.86 whereby the learned Munsiff No. 2, Karimganj rejected the defendant petitioner's application under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereafter the 'Code'. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner, who is defendant in Title Suit No. 114 of 1935, had earlier filed the suit which was Money Suit No. 1 of 1984 for recovery of Rs. 9,170/- being the cost of reconstruction/repair of the house involved in the present suit against the present opposite party plaintiff, that money suit was decreed and present plaintiff opposite party preferred an appeal which is pending as Money Appeal No. 10 of 1985. The opposite party plaintiff thereafter filed the present suit for ejectment and recovery of rent against the present defendant petitioner. 3. On 5.9.86, the defendant petitioner moved an application before the learned Munsiff under section 10 of the Code with the prayer that the Title Suit No. 114/85 be stayed pending final disposal of the aforesaid Money Suit No. 1/84 pending in Money Appeal No. 10 of 1985. By the impugned order, the learned Munsiff rejected the prayer. The learned Munsiff observed : "Advocate for the defendant has prayed for stay of the proceeding of this suit by petition No. 345/5 on the ground that the subject matter of this suit is the same of M. Appeal No. 10 of 1985 which is pending disposal. I have perused the zerox copy of M. S. No. 1/84. The cause of action of M. S. 1/84 and M. A. 10/85 and this present suit in not the same and hence there will be no conflicting decisions of the suit. Accordingly prayer for stay stands rejected". 4. I have perused the zerox copy of M. S. No. 1/84. The cause of action of M. S. 1/84 and M. A. 10/85 and this present suit in not the same and hence there will be no conflicting decisions of the suit. Accordingly prayer for stay stands rejected". 4. Aggrieved, the defendant petitioner has come up to this Court, and Shri A. B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on his behalf, has submitted that the learned Munsiff failed ta exercise jurisdiction, because he had not followed the procedure by fixing a date for hearing of the petition under section 10 of the Code, that the parties were not heard, and that in making the order the learned Munsiff has referred to 'cause of action' of the suit which is not a requirement for consideration under the provisions of section 10, that accordingly the impugned order be set aside, and the matter be sent back to the lerrned trial court for fresh hearing of the application under section 10 of the Code. On the other hand, Shri H. R. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the opposite party, has submitted that the defendant was heard on prayer under section 10 of the Code and there was no failure in exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Munsiff and theri is no reason for interference in revision by this court. 5. I have considered the submissions for the parties and am inclined to think that there is no reason for interference with the impugned order for the reasons that even though the application under section 10 of the Code had been moved the same day, yet the learned Munsiff had heard the learned counsel for the defendant petitioner on the prayer made in the application and for reasons recorded, the petition was rejected. On consideration of the facts stated in the application under section 10 of the Code, it is clear that the earlier suit which was pending in appeal was for recovery of money being cost of reconstruction and repair of the house, whereas present suit is for ejectment and recovery of arrears of re against the defendant petitioner who is a tenant. The use the expression 'cause of action' by the learned Munsiff in order does not in my opinion in any manner render the crde infirm because the matters in issue in the present suit are diffe rent from the matters which were in issue in the earlier suiti Shri A. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, ha submitted that even in the earlier suit question of title may be involved and hence the matters in issue could be the same. In the facts stated in the application under section 10 of the Code, the earlier suit was only for recovery of money on tt basis of some 'understanding' or 'agreement' between the parties, as stated in para 4 of the present petition. Accordingly the view taken by the learned Munsiff cannot be said to be erroneous. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no ground for interference with the impugned order. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Let the records be sent back to the trial court immediately.