Judgment : The petitioner in this C.R.P. filed on 16. 1992, O.S.No.631 of 1992, on the file of District Munsif, Tirupathur, for permanent injunction (restraining the defendant-respondent from ejecting him from the suit land), and also filed therein I.A.No. 1779 of 1992 under Sec. 10, C.P.C. for staying the said suit till the disposal of T.R.ANo.2 of 1992, on the file of Tenancy Tahsildar, Vaniyambadi, filed by himself on 16. 1992, (i.e. subsequent to the filing of the above referred to suit) for recording him as tenant under the Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1969. The said I.A. was dismissed and aggrieved by that, the plaintiff has filed this C.R.P.No.1100 of 1993. 2. Apart from the fact that Sec. 10, C.P.C. will apply only in the case when the two proceedings in question are “suits” (vide: Diraviraj v. M.R.Palaniswamy, (1990)1 L.W. 239 , Sec.10 only contemplates stay of trial of a suit in which the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit, but here, the abovesaid T.R.A. proceeding is not a previously instituted proceeding but a subsequently instituted one. Therefore, it is clear that Sec. 10 will not apply, looking at from any angle and the court below has committed no error-leave alone error of jurisdiction-in-having dismissed the LA. 3. But the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the Court below should have invoked its inherent powers under Sec.151, C.P.C. and granted stay asked for. For contending so, the learned counsel relies on 91 L. W. 459. But I find that the Supreme Court in Ramchand and Sons Sugar Mills v. Ramatlal Bhargava, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1209, has held that the inherent power will not be exercised if it is exercised inconsistent with, or comes into conflict with, any of the power expressly or by necessary implication conferred by the other provisions of the Code. But I find that the Supreme Court in Ramchand and Sons Sugar Mills v. Ramatlal Bhargava, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1209, has held that the inherent power will not be exercised if it is exercised inconsistent with, or comes into conflict with, any of the power expressly or by necessary implication conferred by the other provisions of the Code. Further, even in Manoharlal Chopra v. Raj Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hirlal, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 527: (1963) All L.J. 169, it has been held that inherent powers are not to be exercised when their exercise may be in conflict with what had been expressly provided in the Code or against the intentions of the Legislature." Further, in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, A.I.R 1964 S.C. 993:1.L.R. (1964)2 All 590: (1964)5 S.C.R.946, the Supreme Court has also observed "it is common ground that the inherent power of the court cannot override the express provisions of the law." In the light of the above observations of the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the inherent powers could be exercised in the present cane. In fact, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Subba-ramayya v. B.N.Swami, A.I.R, 1972 A.P. 186, has also held thus: "On a plain reading of the section, it is manifest that Sec. 10 is attracted only when the previously instituted proceedings and the subsequently instituted proceedings are suits. If one is suit and the other under Sec. 10, C.P.C. is not attracted. Inherent powers cannot be invoked in a case where a particular procedure has been laid down to meet a particular contingency." 4. Even assuming that Sec.151, C.P.C. could be invoked despite specific provision contained for interfering in this revision petition, on the ground that the court below ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Sec.151, C.P.C. The petitioner himself filed the abovesaid suit O.S.No.631 of 1992 and cannot have stay of the trial of the, same on the ground that he himself instituted subsequently another proceeding in the abovesaid T.R.A.No.2 of 1992. At any rate, the court below cannot be said to have committed any error of jurisdiction in having dismissed the I.A. From the impugned order, it is also clear that only under Sec. 10, C.P.C., the relief was sought for. while so, it cannot be said that any jurisdictional error the court below committed in having disposed of the said I.A. pursuant to the said section. while so, it cannot be said that any jurisdictional error the court below committed in having disposed of the said I.A. pursuant to the said section. Hence, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.