JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition involves setting aside of the order dated 26.8.2017 passed in R.F.A. No. 6 of 2017 appearing at Annexure-5 thereby rejecting the prayer for stay of further proceedings of R.F.A. No. 6 of 2017 till the disposal of Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011. 2. Short background involved in the case is that petitioner as plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011 in the court of Civil Judger (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar, a suit for specific performance of contract, declaration and permanent injunction etc. involving the present opposite party as defendant no. 2, further involving defendant no. 1, the vendor of defendant no. 2 and also other two defendants involving suit property House No. L-197 G.G.P. Colony, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar. Similarly, the present opposite party being defendant no. 2 in Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011 as plaintiff filed a separate suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 814 of 2011 in the same court for relief of eviction against the present petitioner appearing herein as defendant. During pendency of the Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011, Civil Suit No. 814 of 2011 for eviction involving the same parties was taken up and in the meantime disposed of by judgment and decree resulting R.F.A. No. 6 of 2017 pending before the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar. 3. The petitioner-plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011 filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure applying for stay of R.F.A. No. 6 of 2017 till disposal of Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011. The learned District Judge hearing the parties involved in R.F.A. rejected the application for stay of the proceeding in R.F.A. No. 6 of 2017 till disposal of Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011. Hence the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition. 4. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011 was filed earlier but for the developments in the proceeding vide Civil Suit No. 814 of 2011, that suit was decreed ahead of the disposal of the Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011. Hence the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition. 4. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011 was filed earlier but for the developments in the proceeding vide Civil Suit No. 814 of 2011, that suit was decreed ahead of the disposal of the Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011. But however considering the reliefs claimed in Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011 and the result in Civil Suit No. 814 of 2011 since was dependant on the outcome of Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had a case for asking for stay of R.F.A. No. 6 of 2017 till disposal of the Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011. Even though the application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to the case for the reason the R.F.A. involves subsequent suit, but applying the provision under Section 151 of the Coe of Civil Procedure, the lower appellate court had right to stall the proceeding of subsequent suit in the better interest of the parties and for an effective adjudication of the suits also. It is under the circumstances, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the trial court having failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect has arrived at the wrong and illegal conclusion involving the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand opposing the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to the facts involving the case already narrated hereinabove, contended that since the application taken up for consideration in the impugned order was under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, considering that the R.F.A. though involved subsequent suit, but for the decree already therein, the lower appellate court rightly passed the impugned order, which requires no intervention. 6. Considering the rival contention of the parties this Court finds Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011 involving both the petitioner as plaintiff and opposite party as defendant no. 2, property remaining same as that involved in the other suit claimed the following relief: “It is therefore prayed that your Honour be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff: (i) Directing the defendant No. 1 to take the rest amount of Rs. 2, property remaining same as that involved in the other suit claimed the following relief: “It is therefore prayed that your Honour be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff: (i) Directing the defendant No. 1 to take the rest amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff out of the consideration amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- and to execute the registered sale deed relating to the suit house in favour of the plaintiff taking the permission of the defendant No. 3 within a stipulated period as the Hon’ble court feels fit and proper. (ii) Declare that if any deed/agreement for sale/RSD is made by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2 or with any person other than the plaintiff relating to the suit house are null and void, ineffective, not binding on the plaintiff. (iii) The defendant No. 1, her agents and persons and the defendant No. 2 please be permanently restrained to oust the plaintiff from the suit house illegally and forcibly and be restrained permanently from alienating the suit house to any other person other than the plaintiff, from interfering the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit house in any manner illegally and forcibly and from disconnecting the water line from the suit house. (iv) During the pending of the suit if the plaintiff is dispossessed from the suit house illegally and forcibly by the defendant No. 1, her agents and persons or by defendant No. 2, the possession of the plaintiff please be restored, if waterline is disconnected it be restored. (v) Cost of the suit please be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No. 1. (vi) Any other relief/relieves which the plaintiff is entitled to please be decreed. Whereas in the subsequent suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 814 of 2011, the opposite party herein the defendant no. 2 in the earlier suit as plaintiff filed this suit involving the petitioner herein as the defendant and seeking the following relief: “(1) Let the Defendant be evicted from over the suit properties through the process of Court. (2) Let the Defendant be directed to pay damage @ Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only per month with effect from 01.03.2011 till he delivers peaceful vacant possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff. (3) Cost of the suit be decreed. (2) Let the Defendant be directed to pay damage @ Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only per month with effect from 01.03.2011 till he delivers peaceful vacant possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff. (3) Cost of the suit be decreed. (4) And/or any other consequential relief be decreed.” Similarly, both the suits have the following schedule of properties: SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY (Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011) House No. L-197 G.G.P. Colony, Rasulgarh, P.S. Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar, Distric Khurda bounded by east L-222, west L-198, North-Road and sough-vacant place for drainage. Schedule “A” Properties (Civil Suit No. 814 of 2011) House No. L/197, GGP Colony, P.S. Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar, District-Khurda, Odisha. There remains no doubt that not only both the parties herein are parties to both the suits, but the suit property also involved same property in both the suits even though both are directed with two different prayers. 7. Now looking to the prayers involved in both the suits, earlier suit involving the same parties is for specific performance of contract, declaration and permanent injunction against both the Defendant No. 1 and 2 involving the present petitioner and the opposite party whereas the second suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 814 of 2011 again involving both the petitioner as well as opposite party herein but involving a prayer for eviction of the defendant-the present petitioner by the present opposite party. Looking to the prayer involved in both the suits, this Court finds the relief sought for in Civil Suit No. 814 of 2011 is very much dependant on the ultimate outcome of Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011. Therefore, even though Civil Suit No. 814 of 2011 is disposed of ahead of Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011, this Court observes for the relevancy of the judgment and decree involving Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011, for the interest of justice the R.F.A. No. 6 of 2017 should see progress dependant on the outcome in Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011 and thus, there is no illegality in the approach of the petitioner. Further, looking to the provision at Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle therein makes it clear that there should be stay of the further proceeding of the subsequent suit till the disposal of the earlier suit. Further, looking to the provision at Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle therein makes it clear that there should be stay of the further proceeding of the subsequent suit till the disposal of the earlier suit. It is under this circumstance, this Court finds even though there is the application involved in the impugned order was nomenclated under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but it was in the trap of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Now coming to examine the citations cited at Bar, taking into consideration the decision rendered in the case of Suresh Kumar Singhi and Others vs. Kirit Kotecha and Another, (2005) 99 CLT 345, this Court finds the Division Bench declined to interfere in the trial court’s order for a clear finding that both the suits are of different nature having different issues and partiers also. As such, the decision has no application to the case at hand. 9. Similarly, taking into consideration the decision reported in the case of Aspi Jal and Another vs. Khushroo Rustom Dadhyburjor, (2013) 4 SCC 333 , this Court finds the Hon’ble Apex Court taking into consideration the facts involved therein rejected the application of provision at Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the case observing that few of matters in issue were common and attract the provision of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For the change in the fact situation involving the case at hand with the case decided therein, this Court finds this decision has also no application to the present case. 10. Considering the above and keeping in view the observation of this Court hereinabove, particularly, observing that not only the parties in both the suits are common but for the commonness in the property involved in both the suits and the lis involved in the subsequent suit since is dependant on the result of the earlier suit, this Court finds even assuming that provision at Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no direct application to the case at hand, but applying the provision contained in Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, further proceeding involving R.F.A. No. 6 of 2017 has to be stayed till there is ultimate outcome in Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011. This Court thus finds the finding of the trial court and the resultant decision in rejecting the application for stay at the instance of the petitioner is not sustainable. 11. Under the circumstances, while interfering in the impugned order at Annexure-5, this Court sets aside the same thereby allowing the application at the instance of the petitioner exercising power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure and directs stay of further proceeding of the R.F.A. No. 6 of 2017 till the final outcome involving Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011. 12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition succeeds. No order as to cost.