( 1 ) THE present C. R. P. is filed against the dismissal order passed in I. A. No. 255/2000 in O. S. No. 38/97 on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. ( 2 ) I. A. NO. 255/2000 was filed under sections 10 and 151 of C. P. C. to stay all further proceedings in the suit till the disposal of Civil Appeal No. 4448/97 on the file of the Supreme Court of India. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is a temple. The Inams Deputy Tahasildar on 2-12-1960 granted the suit schedule land in favour of the petitioner after conducting an enquiry. From the date of granting riotwari patta, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land. Against that order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the R. D. O. , kurnool. The R. D. O. , Kurnool, through his proceedings in R. C. No. 7836/82, dated 29-5-1986 directed the M. R. O. , C. Belagal to cancel the patta in favour of the petitioner and directed to issue patta in favour of the respondent. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred against the order of the R. D. O. and the same was dismissed by the District collector on 28-11-1998. Against that order, a writ petition in W. P. No. 18626/88 was preferred and the same was dismissed on 25-7-1996. Against that dismissal order, civil Appeal No. 4448/97 was filed before the Supreme Court and obtained stay of operation of judgment in the orders passed in W. P. No. 18626/88. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed the suit in O. S. No. 38/97 for delivery of vacant possession of the land. In the above suit the petitioner filed the present petition. Thereafter, I. A. No. 218/99 was filed to amend the plaint, which was ordered on 15-3-2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on section 10 C. P. C. in support of his contention and contends that the order of dismissal in I. A. No. 255/2000 is illegal. ( 4 ) NOW, the point for consideration in this revision is whether the Court below is right in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner to stay the trial of the suit till the disposal of the S. L. P. pending before the supreme Court? ( 4 ) NOW, the point for consideration in this revision is whether the Court below is right in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner to stay the trial of the suit till the disposal of the S. L. P. pending before the supreme Court? ( 5 ) AS seen from the facts and circumstances of the case, issuance of grant of patta to the petitioner by the Deputy tahasildar and its cancellation and further granting of patta in favour of the respondent is the subject matter of the Civil appeal No. 4448/97 on the file of the supreme Court of India. However, the appeal is admitted and the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the judgment in w. P. No. 18626 of 1988, till such time the respondent cannot initiate the proceedings to delivery of the vacant land of the plaint schedule property. Section 10 contemplates stay of suits. No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other court in (India) having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of (India) established or continued by (the Central Government) and having like jurisdiction, or before (the Supreme Court ). The object of this section is to prevent the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause of action, the same subject matter and the same relief. The policy of the law is to obviate the possibility of two contradictory verdicts by one and the same Court in respect of the same relief. The policy of the law is to obviate the possibility of two contradictory verdicts by one and the same Court in respect of the same relief. For invoking section 10, following are the conditions precedent: (i) there must be two suits, one previously instituted and the other subsequently instituted, (ii) the matter in issue in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit, (iii) both the suits must be between the same parties or their representatives, (iv) the previously instituted suit must be pending in the same Court in which the subsequent suit is brought or in any other court in India or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government or before the supreme Court, (v) the Court in which the previous suit is instituted must have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit and (vi) such parties must be litigating under the same title in both the suits. ( 6 ) SO, as seen from the facts and circumstances of the case, the conditions precedent stated above are applicable to the present case as the subject matter of the previous suit and the present suit is one and the same, and the parties in both the suits are one and the same, the rights of the petitioners are adjudicated in the earlier proceedings by the Inams Deputy tahasildar, Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court, I am satisfied with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also as per the conditions precedent under Section 10, the court below should not proceed with the trial of the suit when the same issue is pending for consideration before the supreme Court. Therefore, the Court below has committed an error in rejecting the petition filed to stay all further proceedings. The C. R. P. is accordingly allowed setting aside the order passed by the Court below in I. A. NO. 255/2000 in O. S. No. 38/97. No order as to costs.