1. This civil revision application is directed against an order dated 23-3-1980 by which the Court below has stayed the hearing of Money Appeal No. 10 of 1978 till the disposal of First Appeal No. 32 of 1978, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec.151, Civil P. C. (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code). Being aggrieved by the said order the plaintiff-petitioner has moved this Court to vacate the order of stay.

2. This case needs a very short narration of facts. The plaintiff-instituted a money suit which was numbered as money Suit No. 129 of 1976 against M/s. Jardin Victor Limited for realisation of commission pursuant to a contract entered into between the plaintiff and the said company on 11-3-1968, for sale of goods to M/s. National Coal Development Corporation at Ranchi. The commission having fallen due and not paid, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit aforesaid. Money Appeal No. 10 of 1978 arises out of the said suit.

3. The plaintiff-petitioner entered into another contract with M/s. Jardin Handerson Company Limited on 11-3-1968 for representing the Company as well as to sell their products on commission, the plaintiff instituted a suit bearing Money Suit No. 128 of 1976 against M/s. Jardin Handerson Company Limited out of which First Appeal No. 32 of 1978(R) arises and is pending in the High Court.

4. An application, under Sec.10 read with Sec.151 of the Code was filed on behalf of M/s. Jardih Victor Limited in Money Appeal No. 10 of 1978 for staying the hearing, of the said appeal during the pendency of First Appeal No. 32 of 1978 preferred by M/s. Jardin Handerson Company Limited. The prayer for stay was refused by the Court. M/s. Jardin Victor Limited preferred civil revision application No. 294 of 1979(R) in this Court and this Court by its judgment dated the 7th July. 1980, set aside the order and directed the Court below to dispose of the application treating it to be an application under Sec.151 of the Code. This time while the Court considered the said application under Sec.151 of the Code, concluded that it is a fit case where the Money Appeal No. 10 of 1972 should be stayed till the final disposal of First Appeal No. 32 of 1978(R) arising out of Money Suit No. 128 of 1976.

5. It may be stated here that plaintiff had instituted another suit, namely, Money Suit No. 54 of 1978 against M/s. Jardin Victor Limited for recovery of ninety per cent of the balance commission and this Court in civil revision application No. 371 of 1979(R) stayed Money Suit No. 54 of 1978 till the disposal of Money Appeal No. 10 of 1978 on 3rd October, 1980 which arose out of Money Suit No. 129 of 1976. This relates to recovery of ten per cent commission under the same contract and against the same party.

6. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner, has assailed the impugned order of stay and strenuously argued that this is not a case where the Court should have granted stay in exercise of its inherent power. He submitted that in the instant case the defendants are two different limited companies. The claim against the two Companies is distinct and different for rendering services to them separately. Merely because the date of the two contracts and/or the date of two termination letters bear the same date, the prayer sought for cannot be granted, as these considerations are wholly irrelevant for the grant of stay. He referred to the cases of Manohar Lal Chopra V/s. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal (AIR 1962 SC 527), Ramchand and Sons Sugar Mills Private Ltd., Barabanki (U. P.) V/s. Kanhayalal Bhargava, (AIR 1966 SC 1899) and contended that the power under Sec.151 of the Code can only be resorted to for the ends of justice and to avoid an abuse of the process of Court. In short, the submission is that the topic of stay of suit having been dealt with under Sec.10 of the Code and the conditions for its applicability having also been provided under the said section, merely