Judgment : One Nalliah was the sole proprietor of Balasubramanian Oil and Ginning Factory, Dindigal. He had been purchasing cotton seeds for his business from various traders through M/s.Murugesan and Company (in short ‘the firm’) a registered partnership firm. One S.Murugesan, V.R.Nagarathina, S.M.Mathiaselvam and R.N.Balu are stated to be the partners of the said firm. 2. There was one proprietrix concern going by name Prakash Cotton traders, Rajapalayam, and one R.Gangammal is its sole proprietrix. She had been effecting sales of cottonseeds on credit to the said Nalliah. Certain amounts due to her by the said Nalliah had been paid in time oh demand emerging therefor. 3. In the meantime, the said Nalliah died on 22. 1988, leaving behind him his wife N.Chellammal, son N.Balasubramanian, and four daughters, namely, N.Vijayalakshmi, minor Vijayar-ani, minor Kalaiselvi and minor Karpagavalli. Subsequent to the death of the said Nalliah, his wife son and four daughters succeeded to his estate. 4. As repeated demands evoked no responses, the said R.Gangammal, for the amount due to her by the said Nalliah instituted the suit in O.S.No.201 of 1988 on the file of Sub Court, Srivilliputhur impleading the legal representatives of the said deceased Nalliah, as defendants 1 to 6, besides impleading the firm and its partners as defendants 7 to 11, for the amount due, namely, Rs.1,26,5797. 5. One other creditor of the said Nalliah namely, N.Ramu Gounder, for himself and on behalf of other creditors, filed the suit in O.S.No.429 of 1989 on the file of Sub Court, Dindigul, impleading the legal representatives of the said Nalliah and his certain other creditors including Gangam-mal, the plaintiff in the earlier suit, praying for the relief of administration of the estate of the deceased Nalliah, in the hands of the legal representatives of the deceased, by appointment of an Administrator and for taking of accounts. 6. The legal representatives of the deceased Nalliah filed I.A.No.787 of 1989 in the earlier suit, under Secs.10 and 151, C.P.C, praying for stay of the said suit till the disposal of the latter suit. 7. Strong and stout opposition emerged from the other side to such an application. 8. 6. The legal representatives of the deceased Nalliah filed I.A.No.787 of 1989 in the earlier suit, under Secs.10 and 151, C.P.C, praying for stay of the said suit till the disposal of the latter suit. 7. Strong and stout opposition emerged from the other side to such an application. 8. Learned Subordinate Judge on consideration of the materials placed before him and after hearing the arguments of the respective learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the said application, giving rise to the present revision petition, by the aggrieved legal representatives of the deceased Nalliah. 9. Even, at the outset, I may point out that there are no merits for the entertainment of the civil revision petition, inasmuch as the provisions of Sec. 10, C.P.C. can by no stretch of imagination, be stated to be attracted for stay of all further proceedings in the earlier suit. The scanning of the nature of the reliefs prayed for, in both the suits, would point out that the matter in issue is not similar. This apart the parties in both the suits are different. In such state of affairs, there is no plausibility of any conflicting decisions being arrived at by both the courts regarding the amount due to the plaintiff in the earlier suit from out of the estate available, in the hands of the legal representatives of the deceased Nalliah. The grant or otherwise of the decree of the earlier suit will be taken due note of in the earlier suit will be taken due note of in the latter suit in the administration of the estate of the deceased. In the absence of the applicability of the provisions of Sec.151, C.P.C, in this view of the matter, there is no necessity at all for stay of all further proceedings in the earlier suit and therefore,it is that the impugned order of the court below refusing to grant stay cannot at all be stated to be not sustainable in law. 10. As such, the civil revision petition deserves to be dismissed even at the admission stage and is accordingly dismissed.