JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in a Revision whereby the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the Settlement Office of Consolidation, Sadar, District Sultanpur has been affirmed. 3. The issue involved in the present petition is regarding the applicability of Section 10 C.P.C. in the proceedings. A dispute broke out between the petitioner and the private respondent no. 3 in respect of the property left behind by the mother of the petitioner and the mother-in-law of the respondent no. 3. 4. The land in dispute is a house situate in Abadi land and it also relates to the agricultural land of Khata No. 709, Khata No. 598, Khata No. 402 and 601 situate in Village Lakkhipur, Pargana Miranpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Sultanpur. The house as well as the agricultural property both was created by Sri Satya Narayan Yadav and upon his death, it was succeeded by his wife Smt. Dhanpati. Sri Satya Narayan Yadav was survived by his two sons Sri Hansraj Yadav, the petitioner and Sri Daya Shankar who is the husband of the respondent no. 3. 5. It is alleged that since the petitioner on account of his vocation left for Delhi, the respondent no. 3 got a will manufactured and got the same registered on 19.05.2009, as a result, she attempted to usurp all the properties by herself. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved and after having come to know of the alleged will filed a suit for cancellation of the will before the Civil Judge, Junior Division (South) Court No. 24, Sultanpur, which was registered as R.S. No. 1032 of 2014. 7. It appears that the respondent no. 3 and her husband appeared before the Civil Court and filed their written statement denying the averments of the plaint and also instituted a counter claim in respect of the house constructed on the Abadi land and sought a relief of partition. Subsequently, while the suit for cancellation of the will was pending before the Civil Court, the respondent no. 3 filed suit relating to partition of agricultural holdings under Section 176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari and Land Reforms Act. Subsequently, while the suit for cancellation of the will was pending before the Civil Court, the respondent no. 3 filed suit relating to partition of agricultural holdings under Section 176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari and Land Reforms Act. The petitioner appeared in the said suit and filed his written statement and also raised a plea that the entire issue revolved around the will of Late Smt. Dhanpati which was the subject matter of the Civil Suit pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division (South) Lucknow. 8. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner had moved an application under Section 10 C.P.C. before the Revenue Court that the proceedings of the suit for partition/division of the land holdings pending before the Revenue Court be stayed in terms of Section 10 C.P.C. It is the said application preferred by the petitioner under Section 10 C.P.C. which came to be rejected by means of order dated 22.03.2017 and the said order was challenged in Revision which has been dismissed by means of order dated 25.10.2021. 9. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since in both the suits, the issue relates to the will in question which will materially affect the rights of the parties and the findings on the will returned by the Civil Court shall affect the status of the private respondent no. 3 in the suit for partition which has been instituted by her, therefore, it was necessary that till such time the suit pending before the Civil Court is decided and the proceedings of the Revenue Court be stayed. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has relied upon the aforesaid decisions:- (i) Pukhraj D. Jain and others Vs. G. Gopalakrishna reported in 2004 (7) SCC 251 paragraph 4; (ii) National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences reported in 2005 (2) SCC 256 paragraph 8; (iii) ASPI Jal and Another Vs. Khurhroo Rustom Dadyburjor reported in 2013 (4) SCC 333 , paragraph 9 to 11 & (iv) Gokul and Another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others reported in 1968 RD 160, page 61 11. Khurhroo Rustom Dadyburjor reported in 2013 (4) SCC 333 , paragraph 9 to 11 & (iv) Gokul and Another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others reported in 1968 RD 160, page 61 11. In so far as the decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, they have been rendered in their separate sets of facts which is not applicable in the present case whereas the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Gokul Vs. DDC (supra) does not deal with the aforesaid issue and has been rendered prior to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Padarath and others Vs. Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur & Others reported in (1989) 1 AWC 290 , accordingly, the aforesaid decisions do not come to the rescue of the petitioner. 12. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material available on record. The facts are not in dispute, inasmuch as, the petitioner has instituted a suit for cancellation of the will allegedly executed by Smt. Dhanpati in favour of the respondent no. 3.It is also to be noticed that the private respondent no. 3 has filed her written statement in the civil suit and has also sought a counter claim for partition. 13. On the other hand, the respondent no. 3 has filed a suit for partition wherein the present petitioner is the defendant. One aspect which needs to be considered first is that the suit filed for cancellation is in respect of the subject matter which relates to the Abadi land, partition of the house constructed thereon whereas the suit preferred before the Revenue Court under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is in respect of a division of the land holdings which relates to the agricultural property. 14. Thus, it would be clear that in view of Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, no other court than the court mentioned in Column 4 of the Schedule II shall take cognizance of any suit or application or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. 15. 15. From the perusal of the language of Section 331, it would indicate that it is a non-obstante clause, inasmuch as, it clearly provides that the provisions of Section 331 shall be operational notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 16. In this context, if the suit for partition/division of land holdings is seen, it would indicate that the said suit is a one which is covered under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and is further covered by serial no. 16 of the Second Schedule appended to Section 331 in the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The suit which is pending before the Civil Court relates to cancellation of the will of Smt. Dhanpati wherein a counter claim for partition of the house which is part of an Abadi land which is pending. 17. It is no doubt true that the right of the respondent no. 3 in both the suits will depend on the outcome of the will, inasmuch as, in case if the will is not found to be genuine, perhaps, the private respondent no. 3 may not have a right in the property in question, however, what is to be noticed is that the two suits which are pending are of two different nature and before two separate courts. The suit for cancellation pending before the Civil Court is prior in time and the suit for division of the land holdings is a suit instituted later. 18. The application seeking stay of the revenue proceedings has been moved in the suit preferred, subsequently, before the Revenue Court, however, at this stage, if the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and the decisions cited by him are noticed, it would indicate that there are certain conditions which must be fulfilled before passing an order staying the trial of the suit in terms of Section 10 C.P.C. Amongst others, one major condition which must be fulfilled is that the suit, the trial of which is sought to be stayed in terms of Section 10 C.P.C. must be in respect of the entire cause of action which is the subject matter of the suit instituted prior in time, coupled with the fact that subsequently instituted suit must also have the jurisdiction to grant the remedy/relief which has been claimed in the suit instituted prior in time. 19. 19. In this context, if the two suits and the Courts where they are pending is seen, it would reveal that before the Civil Court, the matter is confined only to the Abadi land wherein the issue of will is in question. 20. It is now well settled that a suit for cancellation of an instrument is cognizable only by the Civil Court and such a relief cannot be granted by the Revenue Court (see full bench decision of this Court in the Case of Ram Padarath and others Vs. Second Additional District Judge, Sultanpur & Others reported in (1989) 1 AWC 290 ) 21. Thus, it would be seen that the Revenue Court wherein the subsequent suit is pending is not competent to grant the relief of cancellation. Moreover, it also does not have the jurisdiction to grant the remedy of partition in respect of an abadi land or the house constructed thereon. Conversely, the Civil Court which is seized of the matter relating to the will does not have the jurisdiction to grant a relief of partition relating to agricultural land as the same would have hit by provisions of Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 22. In this view of the matter, where the two suits are pending before the courts of two separate jurisdiction relating to two separate cause of actions where the subject matter also relates to two separate type of properties merely because one issue regarding the will of Dhanpati is common and would have the material bearing would not attract the provisions of Section 10 C.P.C. 23. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that no error has been committed by the two courts while rejecting the application moved by the petitioner which has been affirmed in Revision, hence, the petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. 24. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.