ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 4.9,2007 passed in I.A. No. 217 of 2007 in O.S. No. 127 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court V, Tiruvellore. 2. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 127 of 2001 is the revision, petitioner before this Court. 3. The revision petitioner herein filed O.S. No. 127 of 2001 under Section 70(1) of the Tamilnadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 (Tamilnadu Act 22 of 1959), praying to se aside the order of the Special Commissioner of H.R. & C.E Department, dated 31.7.2001 till the disposal of O.A. No. 7 of 1996 on the file of the Joint Commissioner of H.R.& C.E., Chennai 34. 4. The plaintiff/revision petitioner herein has also challenged in the very same suit, the circular dated 2.8.2001 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, H.R.& C.E. Department, and also to permit him to act as a non-hereditary trustee to the suit temple, by passing an order of status quo till the disposal of O.A. No. 7 of 1996. He also prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants in the suit to appoint any person from the sub-sect i.e., Goldsmith from Viswakarma community as non-hereditary to the suit temple and no one else from the other remaining sub-sects. 5. Written statement was filed and the suit is being contested. When the suit was posted in the list, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 217 of 2001 under Section 10 of C.P.C. to stay the present suit till the final disposal of O.A. No. 7 of 1996 on the file of the Joint Commissioner, H.R.& C.E. Department, Chennai 34 and A.P. No. 19 of 1997 on the file of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Chennai 34. In the affidavit filed in support of the application filed under Section 10 of C.P.C, the revision petitioner stated that prior to the orders and circular which are under challenge in the suit, there was O.A. No. 7 of 1996 which is pending for disposal on the file of the Joint Commissioner. Similarly, A.P. No. 17 of 1997 is also pending for disposal on the file of the Commissioner, H.R.& C.E., for modification of orders passed in O.A. No. 7 of 1996. Similarly, A.P. No. 17 of 1997 is also pending for disposal on the file of the Commissioner, H.R.& C.E., for modification of orders passed in O.A. No. 7 of 1996. If O.A. No. 7 of 1996 and A.P. No. 17 of 1997 are disposed of by the H.R. & C.E. Department, the relief in the present suit would be decided easily and therefore, the revision petitioner wanted to stay the present suit fifed in C.S. No. 127 of 2001. This was opposed by the 4th defendant in the suit, i.e., the 4th respondent herein, by filing a counter. The 4th respondent herein denied that A.P. No. 17 of 1997 is pending for disposal. He pointed out that O.A. No. 7 of 1996 it self was filed for modification of ire orders passed in O.A. No. 18 of 198 after a lapse of six years. According to the 4th respondent herein, the results in O.A. No. 7 of 1996 and A.P. No. 17 of 1997 (which is alleged to be pending) shall not have any bearing at all in the present suit. Hence, the 4th respondent herein prayed for the dismissal of I.A. No. 217 of 2007. 6. The trial Court by order dated 4.9.2007 dismissed the LA. No. 217 of 2007 as devoid of merits and aggrieved by the same, the above Civil Revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. I have also gone through the documents and judgments filed in support of their submissions. 8. Both the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 4 respondent herein raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of I.A. No. 217 of 2007 filed by the revision petitioner under Section 10 of C.P.C. and contended that I.A. No. 217 of 2007 itself is not maintainable as per the provisions of Section 10 of C.P.C., and there is no merit in the revision petition filed against the order dismissing the I.A. No. 217 of 2007 on 4.9.2007. 9. In find force in the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 10. 9. In find force in the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 10. The learned Special Government Pleader relied on a decision of this Court (2008) 1 MLJ 300 : (2007) 5 CTC 781 wherein a learned Judge of this Court held that the word 'suit' used in Section 10 C.P.C. refers to a suit instituted by presenting a plaint before a civil Court and it does not include the petitions filed under other statutes. 11. The learned Special Government Pleader has also relied on the decision of AIR 1995 Guj. 220 wherein the Gujarat High Court held that Section 10 of C.P.C. refers to a suit in Civil Court and it will not apply to any other proceeding under common statute. 12. In the light of the decision of this Court R. Subramanian v. Arulmighu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Thirukkoil Palani through its Administrative Officer (supra), I.A. No. 217 of 2007 filed by the revision petitioner before the trial Court under Section 10 of C.P.C. is not at all maintainable as it sought to stay the present suit in O.S. No. 127 of 2001 till the disposal of O.A. No. 7 of 1996 on the file of the Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. and A.P. No. 7 of 1997 on the file of the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. These two proceedings are not suits as per Section 10 of C.P.C. and therefore, Section 10 of C.P.C. is not applicable at all and the revision petitioner cannot invoke Section 10 of C.P.C. to stay the present suit. 13. In the result, I do not find any merits in the Civil Revision petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2008 filed for stay is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.