ORDER :

1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.07.2022 passed by the IIIrd Civil Judge Class-I, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 142-A/2016, parties being Munir Ahmed & Another Vs. Hemant Topkhanewale, whereby the application moved by the respondent/defendant under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short as the 'CPC') has been allowed consequently, the proceedings of the Civil Suit No. 142- A/2016 have been stayed.

2. The facts of the present case are that earlier one Civil Suit No. 53A/2011 was filed by Hemant Topkhanewale for specific performance of contract and injunction against Anil Topkhanewale with regard to settlement No. 102, Survey No. 472, 494 and part of survey No. 495, total admeasuring 4830 sq. ft. situated at Village Khamarhdih, Patwari Circle No. 110, Revenue Circle Raipur, District Raipur. Defendant Anil Topkhanewale filed a written statement and after a full dressed trial, the IVh Additional District Judge, Raipur dismissed the suit filed by Hemant Topkhanewale vide judgment and decree on 20.06.2012. The plaintiff of that suit namely Hemant Topkhanewale preferred First Appeal No. 139/2012 against judgment and decree dated 20.6.2012 before this Court which is pending consideration.

3. On 22.06.2016, the petitioners filed Civil Suit No. 142A/2016 before the Court of XIIIth Civil Judge, Class-II, Raipur for eviction and vacant possession of the suit property bearing changed survey No. 3/472/11, 494/11, 495/11/5 admeasuring 4830 sq.ft. on the basis of a registered sale-deed executed by Anil Topkhanewale in favour of the plaintiffs on 19.02.2016 situated at Village Khamhardih, Patwari Circle No. 110, Ward No. 29, Netaji Subhashchandra Bose Ward, Tehsil Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

4. During the pendency of Civil Suit No. 142-A/2016, the defendant/respondent moved an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for staying the further proceedings of the civil suit on the ground that the earlier civil suit filed by the defendant/respondent against Anil Topkhanewale was dismissed by the learned trial Court against which a First Appeal is pending before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. It is further stated that during the pendency of the above-referred suit, the suit property was sold to the plaintiffs/petitioners and the issues are identical and substantially similar to the previous suit and the judgment and decree passed in the pending First Appeal would be binding on subsequent suit therefore the proceedings of Civil Suit No. 142-A/2016 may be stayed till final disposal of the First Appeal pending before the High Court. The application was replied to by the petitioners where they denied the averments made in the application and specifically stated that the nature of both the suits is different, the subject matter is also different and in both the suits different issues were framed. It is further stated that the parties are also not similar and relief(s) sought in both the suits are different. The petitioners further stated that the application has been moved after six years to delay the final disposal of the civil suit.

5. Vide order dated 23.07.2022, the learned trial Court held that First Appeal No. 139/2012 is pending before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 53A/2011 and the suit property is similar in both the suits. It is also held that the parties are the same and to avoid a multiplicity of cases, further proceedings of the civil suit can be stayed, consequently, an order has been passed to stay further proceedings of Civil Suit No. 142A/2016.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the issues involved in both cases are entirely different and the suit preferred by the respondent was in respect of the specific performance of a contract, whereas the present suit has been filed by the petitioners for eviction, vacant possession and mandatory injunction,