Judgment :- 1. The petitioners, who have suffered an order in their Application under Section 10, C.P.C., which has been filed by them for staying their Appeal till the disposal of the Suit that has been instituted against them by the respondents herein in O.S. No.5 of 2001, is before this Court. 2. The short matrix of the case is as follows:-- The respondents 1 to 4 herein have filed the suit against the petitioners in O.S. No.5 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The said Suit has been decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti. Later, in the Appeal filed by the petitioners herein in A.S. No.57 of 2005 before the Principal District Court, Tuticorin, the judgment and decree made in O.S. No.5 of 2001 has been set aside and the matter has been remitted back to the Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti. C.M.A. No.225 of 2006 has been filed by the petitioners before this Court against the order of remand made in A.S. No.57 of 2005 and the same is pending. In the meanwhile, the petitioners have filed the Suit against the respondents in O.S. No.293 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Kovilpatti for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said Suit has been dismissed and the petitioners have filed an Appeal in A.S. No.22 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti. The petitioners have filed an Application under Section 10, C.P.C. to stay the Appeal preferred by them in A.S. No.22 of 2006 till the disposal of the suit in O.S. No.5 of 2001 preferred by the respondents herein on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti. According to the petitioners, the subject matter of the suit in O.S. No.5 of 2001 and the subject matter of the Suit in O.S. No.293 of 2004 which is now under Appeal in A.S. No.22 of 2006 is one and the same and in order to avoid conflict of interest, the said Application under Section 10, C.P.C. has been filed. The learned Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti by his order dated 27.7.2006 has dismissed the said Application filed by the petitioners in I.A. No.57 of 2006. The learned Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti by his order dated 27.7.2006 has dismissed the said Application filed by the petitioners in I.A. No.57 of 2006. The present Revision is filed challenging the said order passed in I.A. No.57 of 2006 in A.S. No.22 of 2006 dated 27.7.2006 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti. 3. Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the respondents herein have filed the Suit in O.S. No.5 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti for specific performance of an agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by the petitioners herein. Though the said suit has been originally decreed in favour of the respondents, the Appeal preferred by the petitioners in A.S. No.57 of 2005 was allowed and remitted back to the Trial Court. Challenging the same, the petitioners have preferred C.M.A. No.225 of 2006 before this Court and the same is pending. The learned counsel has further submitted that the Suit in O.S. No.293 of 2004 has been preferred by the petitioners for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said Suit has been dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Kovilpatti on 2.1.2005 and the appeal in A.S. No.22 of 2006 has been preferred by the petitioners and the same is now pending on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti. The learned counsel further submitted that the subject matter of the suit property in both the Appeal in A.S. No. 22 of 2006 and the suit in O.S. No.5 of 2001 is one and the same. The parties are also one and the same and hence, the dismissal of the Application under Section 10, C.P.C, filed by the petitioners is totally erroneous. 4. Per contra, Mr. D. Rajendran, the learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the Suit in O.S. No.5 of 2001 filed by the respondents is one for specific performance of an agreement of sale and the later Suit in O.S. No.293 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Kovilpatti filed the petitioners is one for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the relief’s claimed in both the Suits are different and hence, the Application filed under Section 10, C.P.C. is not maintainable. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after decretal of the Suit in O.S. No.5 of 2001, the respondents have filed Execution Petition and the sale deed was executed in their favour and possession was also delivered to them and on the request of the petitioners, they have been allowed to stay in a room in the upstair with the promise that they will vacate in a few days. When the respondents insisted the petitioners to vacate the room, the petitioners have filed the Suit in O.S. No.293 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Kovilpatti. Further, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the Suit in O.S. No.293 of 2004 has been dismissed by the learned District Munsif, Kovilpatti on 2.1.2005 and the Appeal preferred by them in A.S. No.22 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti is pending and the petitioners should not be shown any indulgence. The learned counsel further submits that Section 10, C.P.C. will not be applicable to the case on hand, since the petitioners have been asking for stay of the Appeal in A.S. No.22 of 2006 till the disposal of O.S. No.5 of 2001. 5. According to the learned counsel, as per Section 10, C.P.C, the petitioners cannot ask for stay of the First Appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the petitioners and the respondents. As admitted by the petitioners, their Suit in O.S. No.293 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Kovilpatti for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property was dismissed on 2.1.2005 and the Appeal filed by them against the said judgment and decree is pending on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti in A.S. No.22 of 2006. The other Suit filed by the respondents in O.S. No.5 of 2001 is for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Hence, the relief prayed for in O.S. No.5 of 2001 and the relief in O.S. No.293 of 2004 are entirely different. The other Suit filed by the respondents in O.S. No.5 of 2001 is for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Hence, the relief prayed for in O.S. No.5 of 2001 and the relief in O.S. No.293 of 2004 are entirely different. In this connection, it is useful to extract Section 10, C.P.C. which reads as follows: "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 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." 6. By reading Section 10, C.P.C., it can be safely concluded that 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. In the case on hand, the Suit that has been filed by the petitioners for permanent injunction was already dismissed and now the First Appeal is pending. Thus, Section 10, C.P.C. will not be applicable to the case on hand. The petitioners in their Application under Section 10, C.P.C. are asking for stay of the Appeal which is not sustainable. 7. In this connection, Mr. D. Rajendran, the learned counsel for the respondents, has cited a decision reported in Munilal v. Sarvajeet, AIR 1984 Raj. 22 wherein it has been held as under: "The provisions of Section 10 are mandatory and the trial of a subsequently instituted Suit is bound to be stayed if any party makes a request before the Court trying that suit that a previously instituted Suit is pending determination either in the Trial Court or the first Appeal or Second Appeal arising there from is pending for decision. But if the trial of the subsequently instituted Suit has proceeded without any objection and the same has terminated with the delivery of the judgment and the preparation of the decree of that Court then Section 10 has no relevance, because it only prohibits the `trial of the Suit' and no further. But if the trial of the subsequently instituted Suit has proceeded without any objection and the same has terminated with the delivery of the judgment and the preparation of the decree of that Court then Section 10 has no relevance, because it only prohibits the `trial of the Suit' and no further. Consequently, the Appellate Court could not be prohibited from proceeding with the hearing of the Appeal arising out of the subsequently instituted Suit on the ground that the previously instituted Suit was still pending and the trial of the subsequently instituted Suit was prohibited by the provisions of Section 10. As the trial of the subsequently instituted Suit is over and the objection under Section 10 having been waived at the trial stage, the same could not be entertained by the First Appellate Court." The above said decision is squarely applicable to the present case on hand. 8. Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has cited a decision reported in Ilamurugan v. Subramaniam, 1999 (1) M.L.J. 296 and submitted that Section 10, C.P.C. will be applicable to the case on hand. But, I am unable to accede to the said argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the case cited above, the revision petitioner therein filed the Suit seeking bare injunction restraining the respondent therein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of, the suit property. The said Suit was resisted by the respondent stating that he was a cultivating tenant which has been recorded so by the authority concerned. The revision petitioner therein seems to have filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority questioning the order declaring the respondent as cultivating tenant. At that point of time, the petitioners therein seems to have filed an Application under Section 10, C.P.C. read with Section 151, C.P.C. seeking stay of all further proceedings in the Suit that has been laid by him. The said application has been dismissed by the Trial Court and the revision has been filed against the said order. In that circumstances, this Court in the said decision held that the Suit filed by petitioner can wait till the disposal of the Appeal preferred by him. That is not the case here. The said application has been dismissed by the Trial Court and the revision has been filed against the said order. In that circumstances, this Court in the said decision held that the Suit filed by petitioner can wait till the disposal of the Appeal preferred by him. That is not the case here. In the present case on hand, the petitioners, who lost before the Trial Court, have filed an Appeal and now they are seeking for stay of the Appeal and hence, the facts and circumstances of the said case will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand. 9. Yet another decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is reported in Krishnan v. Krishnamurthy, 1982 (1) M.L.J. 4 . In the said decision, the owners of the land have filed the Suit for possession. In that, the defendants have filed an Application for stay of the Suit on the ground that their Application for recording them as` cultivating tenants is pending before the Record Officer. The same has been ordered by the Trial Court and the Civil Revision Petition has been filed questioning the said order. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed on the ground that in view of the pendency of the proceedings before the authority for declaration whether the respondents therein are cultivating tenants or not, the Suit can wait till the verdict given by the Record Officer. But, the facts and circumstances of that case is totally different from the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand. 10. As already held by me, the petitioners' Appeal is pending before the Subordinate Court, Kovilpatti and it is not the Suit that has been instituted by the petitioners is pending. Moreover, as held in Munilal v. Sarvaieet, AIR 1984 Raj. 22 , hearing of Appeal by Appellate Court is not a part of "trial of Suit". Further, the petitioners, who have not raised objections when the trial of their Suit has been taken up by referring about the earlier Suit that has been instituted by the respondents, after the trial was over and after filing the appeal, cannot maintain the Application under Section 10, C.P.C. The Court below has considered all the relevant points and dismissed the said Application filed by the petitioners. Hence, I do not find any error of jurisdiction or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. 11. In the result, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti dated 27.7.2006 made in I.A. No.57 of 2006 in A.S. No.22 of 2006 is hereby confirmed and the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P. No.1 of 2006 is closed. However, there is no order as to costs.