JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 10.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Bundi in Civil Misc. Application No.12/2020 dismissing the review petition filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs against the order dated 07.01.2020 passed in Civil Suit No.05/2012 whereby, an application filed by the respondents-defendants under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory/permanent injunction and mesne profit against the respondents-defendants. During its pendency, the respondents filed an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC stating therein that qua the subject matter of suit, a residential house, they have already filed a suit against the petitioners for permanent injunction which was partly decreed by the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.08.2011 restraining the petitioners from dispossessing the applicants- defendants without due process of law. It was averred that first appeal preferred by them was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.08.2011 whereagainst they filed a civil second appeal which is pending consideration before the Rajasthan High Court. In these circumstances, a prayer was made to stay the proceedings in the suit filed by the petitioners. The learned trial Court while allowing the application filed by the defendants vide its order dated 07.01.2020, stayed the suit filed by the petitioners. The review petition filed thereagainst by the petitioners was also dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2021. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 10 CPC had no applicability in the case in as much as the suit filed by the respondents was for injunction simplicitor without seeking any relief of declaration. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Abdul Hamid v. Hamida Bano & Anr., 2018(2) DNJ(Raj.) Heard. Considered. 4. The suit filed by the respondents-defendants seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioners qua the residential house, subject matter of the present suit, is pending consideration before this Court in second appeal. In view of settled legal position that appeal is continuation of suit, it can safely be held that a lis in between the parties qua the same subject matter is sub judice before a competent Court of law. In view of settled legal position that appeal is continuation of suit, it can safely be held that a lis in between the parties qua the same subject matter is sub judice before a competent Court of law. In the suit filed by the petitioners, main relief is dispossession of the respondents. In these facts, undeniably, there is a possibility of conflicting decree. Even, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the aforesaid position of law and facts. 5. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Court below has committed no error in allowing the application filed by the respondents under Section 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. 6. The judgment of this Court in case of Abdul Hamid (supra) is of no help to the petitioners having been rendered in entirely different facts and circumstances. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.