JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, J. - This is a revision under Section 333 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated May 1, 1984 rejecting the revision against the order of the A.S.D.O. Mawana dated November 23, 1983 whereby he decided issue No. 9 against the defendants and refused to stay the proceeding of the suit under Sections 10/151 of C.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that opposite parties Shiv Charan Das Rastogi brought a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. I of 1951 for the declaration of Bhumidhari rights over the disputed land. 3. The suit was mainly contested by the revisionist. Apart from several pleas taken in the written statement a plea to the effect that a suit on similar grounds was already pending between the parties in the civil court, hence this suit is liable to be stayed under Sections 10 and 151 of Civil Procedure Code. The trial court framed several issues out of which issue No. 9 related to Sections 10 and 151 of C.P.C. The trial court taking this issue to be a preliminary one, heard it first and decided it against the defendant on the ground that the revenue court is not subordinate to the civil court and that the latter has no jurisdiction to grant relief under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. A revision against that finding was also dismissed, hence this revision. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the plaintiff in the capacity of manager Ramlila Committee has earlier filed a civil suit against the defendant for permanent injunction and that suit is still pending between the parties and is at the stage of appeal, hence this suit deserves to be stayed under Sections 10/151 of C.P.C. 6. After going through the relevant papers of the previous suit I find that the parties in that suit as well as the present suit are not common and moreover the relief claimed in this suit cannot be granted by the Civil Court. For a suit to be stayed under Section 10, C.P.C. it is absolutely necessary that parties in both the suits should be common and the previous court should have jurisdiction to grant relief claimed in the subsequent suit. For a suit to be stayed under Section 10, C.P.C. it is absolutely necessary that parties in both the suits should be common and the previous court should have jurisdiction to grant relief claimed in the subsequent suit. In the instant case I find both these ingredients lacking hence there is no question of staying this suit under Section 10, C.P.C. or under Section 151, C.P.C. The order of the trial court is perfectly valid and there is no question of interfering in the same. The revision was, therefore, rightly dismissed by the Additional Commissioner. This revision too has no force and is dismissed. Let the record be sent back to the trial court to dispose it of according to law expeditiously.