ORDER 1. Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.4.2011 passed by the Court of First Additional District Judge, Guna, whereby an application under section 10 CPC filed by defendant No.1-petitioner Abbas Ali has been rejected. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner- Abbas Ali had initially filed a suit for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit under the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 against the defendants/respondents in which they filed a counter claim seeking a relief that they be declared as owner and possessor of the suit property measuring 22 × 24 = 528 sq. ft., boundaries of which are specifically mentioned in para 5 of the counter claim, and further relief be granted in the form of declaration that rent deed dated 4.4.1998 be declared as forged, null and void and not binding on the defendants. It is submitted that after filing of such counter claim, suit was filed by the respondents seeking relief of specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction. It is the contention of the petitioners that this suit was not maintainable, and therefore, they filed an application under section 10 CPC claiming stay on the proceedings in the suit on the ground that on the same issue counter claim has been filed by the respondents. 3. Learned trial Court has rejected the application under section 10 CPC observing that the suit filed by Abbas Ali for eviction has different cause of action from the subsequent suit filed by the respondents and thus when the subject matter of the two, namely the suit filed by Abbas Ali and the subsequent suit, is different as suit filed by Abbas Ali is for eviction whereas subsequent suit is for specific performance of the contract, so also when the parties in the suit filed by Abbas Ali and subsequent suit filed for specific performance of the contract being also different, application under section 10 CPC was not maintainable. 4. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has also drawn attention of this Court to order-sheets filed by him on 15.9.2016 with list of documents containing document No.4744/2016 and submitted that in fact vide order dated 6.7.2012 his counter claim was dismissed as not maintainable, therefore, filing of suit for specific performance of the contract did not attract the provisions of section 10 CPC. 5. It is an admitted position that the subject matter of the suit filed by the present petitioners is regarding eviction on the basis of some rent agreement. Respondents claimed title over the suit property on the basis of some alleged agreement for transfer of the suit property in favour of the respondents. In the suit which was filed by the respondents, they sought specific performance of the contract. Thus, the subject matter of the three proceedings, namely the suit filed by the plaintiffs, counter claim filed by the defendants and the suit filed by the defendants being different and parties to the said proceedings being also different, there is no error apparent in exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Court below. Thus, the petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Prashant Sharma and Nirmal Sharma for petitioners; Raman Tiwari for respondents No.2 and 3.