Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff has filed this present civil revision petition as against the order dated 19.08.2008 in I.A.No.156 of 2008 in O.S.No.328 of 2006 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Thirukoilur in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff under Section 10 of CPC praying the trial Court to stay the case in TR.NO.2 of 2007 pending before the Thirukoilur Tahsildar till the dispose of O.S.No.328 of 2006. 2. The trial Court, while passing orders in I.A.No.156 of 2008 has come to the definite conclusion that I.A.No.156 of 2008 filed by the revision petitioner/petitioner/plaintiff is not maintainable and has resultantly dismissed the application. Further the trial Court is of the considered opinion that Section 10 of CPC is not applicable to the case in TR.NO.2 of 2007 pending on the file of Thirukoilur Tahsildar. 3. Before the trial Court, the revision petitioner/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.156 of 2008 inter alia stating that he has filed O.S.No.328 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Thirukoilur and that he is a cultivating tenant and after the death of his father on 7. 2006, he is cultivating the properties, which has been accepted by the respondents/defendants who in turn has given a receipt to that effect and further that a petition in TR.No.2 of 2007 filed before the Thirukoilur Tahsildar is pending in which an enquiry is being conducted till the said enquiry before the Thirukoilur Tahsildar is completed, he has prayed for staying the case in TR No.2 of 2007 pending on the file of the Thirukoilur Tahsildar. 4. The second respondent in the above I.A.No.156 of 2008 has filed a counter inter alia stating that TR No.2 of 2007 petition has been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff after filing of the suit in O.S.No.328 of 2006 and the same has been filed belatedly and the relief prayed for in T.R.No.2 of 2007 and the prayers mentioned in the plaint are totally different and that Section 10 of CPC has no application whatsoever and has prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 5. It is to be noted that the aim of Section 10 CPC is to prevent the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. 5. It is to be noted that the aim of Section 10 CPC is to prevent the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. The main object is to avoid two parallel trials on the same issue by two Courts and to prevent conflicting findings on issues which are substantially or directly in issue in a previously instituted suit. Admittedly, the revision petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.328 of 2006 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Thirukoilur has prayed for the relief of interim injunction against the defendants therein. In fact, the relief prayed for in TR.No.2 of 2007 before the Thirukoilur Tahsildar is different than that of the relief prayed for in the suit. It cannot be gain said that the proceedings before the Thirukoilur Tahsildar in TR.No.2 of 2007 is not a suit and as such Section 10 of CPC is of no avail and as the applicability of Section 10 of CPC is of no avail to the revision petitioner/plaintiff and in view of that matter, the civil revision petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.156 of 2008 in O.S.No.328 of 2006 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this revision. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed.