Judgment : 1. The petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S. No. 452 of 2005, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani, has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition, challenging the order dated 30.10.2006 made in IA. No. 1295 of 2005. The respondent herein is the plaintiff the Suit. 2. Thepetitioner is the cultivating tenant of agricultural land and the respondent is the landlord. Alleging that the petitioner has not pa id rent for the Fasli years 1411, 1412 and 413, the respondent has filed the above Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 98,106/- with interest towards arrears of rent. 3. Admittedly, prior to the filing of the Suit, the respondent has filed P.T. No. 263 of 2003, before the Revenue Court, Madurai under. Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961, for eviction of the petitioner herein on the ground of failure of the petitioner to pay rent for the Fasli Years 1411, 1412 & 1413. The said Petition is pending before the Rent Court. In the meantime, the petitioner has filed two Petitions in P.T. Nos.214 and 215 of 2005, before the Revenue Court seeking for re-mission of rent and the said Petitions are also pending. Only after filing of the above proceedings, O.S. No.452 of 2005 came to be filed by the respondent. 4. During the pendency of the Suit, the petitioner has filed I.A. No.1295 of 2005, under Section 10, C.P.C, requesting the Court to stay all further proceedings until the final disposal of P.T. No.263 of 2003, on the file of the Revenue Court, Madurai. The said petition was op-posed by the respondent. The learned District Munsif, Madurai, has dismissed the same. Challenging the said order of dismissal, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 10, C.P.C, is applicable to the facts of the present case and since the issues involved in the Suit and in Petition No. 263 of 2003, pending on the file of the Revenue Court, Madurai are substantially the same, the Lower Court ought to have stayed the Suit as prayed for, pending disposal of the said Petition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Krishnan v. Krishnamoorthy, (1982) 1 MLJ 5, wherein the Division Bench has held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to stay the trial of a Suit pending before it invoking its inherent power under Section 151, C.P.C., during the pendency of a proceeding by the tenants before the Record Officer under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Tenants Record of Tenancy Rights Act (10 of 1969). Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even assuming that Section 10, C.P.C., is not applicable; the Lower Court ought to have invoked its inherent power under Section 151, C.P.C., and to have stayed the trial of the Suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in Ilamurugan v. Subramaniam, (1999) 1 MLJ 296 , wherein also similar view has been expressed. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Lower Court was right in dismissing the Application on the ground that Section 10, C.P.C., is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He would further submit that Section 151, C.P.C., also couldn’t be invoked to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, since Section 10, C.P.C., is an exhaustive provision dealing with the subject matter. He relies on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, AIR 2005 SC 242 : (2005) 2 SCC 256 : 2005-I-LLJ-566. 8. From the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties, the following questions of law emerge for decision: "a. Whether Section 10, C.P.C. is applicable to the facts of the present case, where the earlier proceeding is not a Suit and it is only a proceeding under a special enactment? b. Whether the inherent jurisdiction of the Civil Court can be invoked under Section 151, C.P.C, to stay the Suit?" 9. In respect of the first question, I have no hesitation to hold that Section 10, C.P.C, is not applicable. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer Section 10, C.P.C, which reads as follows: "Stay of Suit. b. Whether the inherent jurisdiction of the Civil Court can be invoked under Section 151, C.P.C, to stay the Suit?" 9. In respect of the first question, I have no hesitation to hold that Section 10, C.P.C, is not applicable. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer Section 10, C.P.C, which reads as follows: "Stay of Suit. — No Court shall proceed with the trial of any Suit in which the matter in is-sue is also directly and substantially issue 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." 10. A plain reading of Section 10, C.P.C., would show that the issue involved in the present Suit should be directly or substantially in issue in a previously instituted Suit. Though the term `Suit has not been anywhere defined in the Code, Order 4, Rule 1, C.P.C, provides that every Suit shall be instituted by presenting a (Plaint in duplicate to the Court) or such officer as it appoints in this behalf. 11. Thus, to construe-a proceeding as a Suit one has to see whether the same has been instituted by presenting a Plaint. Order 7, C.P.C, prescribes as to what are all the particulars to be contained the Plaint. If Order 4 and Order 7, C.P.C, are closely analysed, it would leave no doubt that the Petition filed under Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961, is not a Suit, since the same has not been instituted by presenting a Plaint before a Civil Court. Therefore, in my considered opinion, Section 10, C.P.C, is not at all applicable. 12. The next question is whether the Civil Court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151, C.P.C., to stay the Suit. Therefore, in my considered opinion, Section 10, C.P.C, is not at all applicable. 12. The next question is whether the Civil Court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151, C.P.C., to stay the Suit. Though the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Krishnan v. Krishnamoorthy (supra), followed in Ilamurugan v. Subramaniam (supra), by the learned single Judge of this Court, is to the effect that the Civil Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to stay the Suit, by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151, C.P.C, very recently, when a similar question came to be considered, the Honble Supreme Court in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, (supra) at p. 568 of LLJ. "In the case of Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hirala, it has been held that inherent jurisdiction of the Court to make orders ex debito justitice is undoubtedly affirmed by Section 151, C.P.C, but that jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to nullify the provisions of the Code Where the provisions of the Code. Where the Code deals expressly with a particulars matter, the provision should normally be regarded as exhaustive. In the present case, as stated above, Section 10, C.P.C, has no application and consequently, it was not open to the High Court to by pass Section 10, C.P.C, by invoking Section 151, C.P.C." 13. In view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, since Section 10, C.P.C., is exhaustive enough, the Civil Court cannot invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151, C.P.C., to stay the Suit. In view of the said settled law, the second question is also being answered against the petitioner. 14. In the result, the order of the Lower court is confirmed. I.A. No. 1295 of 2005 Stands dismissed. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the con-keeled M.P. is closed. Civil revision petition dismissed.