JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The petitioners (sub-tenants), namely, Mohammed Sadiq and Gulab Rasool have approached this Court against the order dated 28.03.2006 whereby the learned trial Court allowed application under Section 10 of CPC and stayed the subsequent suit No. 30/95 (Sadiq v. Madan Qiand) . Since, the respondent No. 2 Madan Chand had already filed a eviction suit against the respondent No. 3 Laxman Das, which was pending before the learned trial Court viz. Civil Suit No. 21/95. 3. The learned appellate Court while setting aside the earlier eviction decree had directed the trial Court to impload the present sub-tenants, petitioners herein, as defendants No. 2 and 3 and in the eviction suit No. 21/ 95 (Madan Chand v. Laxman Das & Ors.), in which suit, the present two petitioners (sub-tenants), namely, Mohammed Sadiq and Gulab Rasool had been impleaded as defendants and they had also filed written statement with cross-objections. The present and subsequent suit being Civil Suit No. 30/95 sought merely the declaration that they should be declared as tenants of landlord - Madan Chand. 4. This subsequent suit between the same parties, who were already in the array of previously instituted suit No. 21/95 by the landlord - Madan Chand, in the opinion of this Court was absolutely a frivolous litigation launched by the present petitioners. Filing of present writ petition by these sub-tenants against the impugned order dated 28.03.2006 by which the learned trial Court stayed the proceedings in the subsequent suit No. 30/95 (Sadiq v. Madan Chand) under Section 10 of the Act and consolidated the same with the trial of previously instituted suit No. 21/95 is an unassailable order. 5. By an ex parte order dated 11.07.2006 of a coordinate bench of this Court, the trial of the previously instituted suit (Civil Suit No. 21/95) was stayed and which stay of proceedings has continued for last six years. In the considered opinion of this Court, the relief which could be granted in the subsequently instituted suit of the present petitioners, already stood granted by the learned trial Court and they were impleaded as tenants and defendants No. 2 and 3 in the previously instituted suit No. 21/95. Therefore, claiming of the same relief in the subsequent instituted suit was nothing but abuse of process of Court and Section 10 clearly not attracted in the circumstances. Therefore, claiming of the same relief in the subsequent instituted suit was nothing but abuse of process of Court and Section 10 clearly not attracted in the circumstances. Therefore, the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in staying the trial of the subsequently instituted suit. The trial of the previously instituted suit No. 21/95 deserves to be expedited now since the present petitioners have already filed written statement with cross objections in the same sit No. 21/ 6. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-against the present petitioners, which will be paid to the respondents No. 2 landlord and the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the Eviction Suit No. 21/95 and conclude the same within a period of one year from today.Appeal Allowed. *******