SAIKIA, J. :- Hansaria, J. sitting singly has referred the following question to Division Bench :

"Whether recourse to S.151, C.P.C. is permissible for staying a suit or for injuncting a plaintiff of a later suit from proceeding with his case under those circumstances where the requirements of S.10, C.P.C. are not satisfied." 2. The question has arisen under the following facts and circumstances. The plaintiff-petitioner instituted Money Suit No. 59/75 against the defendant-opposite party No. 1 and two others for Rs. 3,696/- being the price of 132 maunds of paddy on account of damage for use and occupation of 10 B. 4 K. 16 Laches of plaintiff petitioners land. Munsiffs court decreed the suit for Rs. 21/- holding that the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff. The plaintiff preferred therefrom Money Appeal No. 5176 before the Assistant District Judge who allowed the appeal decreeing the suit for Rs. 3,696/-. The defendant therefrom preferred Second Appeal No. 6/78 which was still pending in the High Court.

3. The plaintiff-petitioner later on 27-2-78 instituted Title Suit No. 15-78 against the defendants-opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of 13 B. 2 K. 2 Ls. of land covered by K.P. Patta No. 41 under Dag Nos. 69, 168, 538. The defendants-opposite parties contested the suit filing a written statement denying the plaintiffs claim and stating that the defendant-opposite party No. 1 had been in occupation for more than 44 years and that the plaintiff-petitioner was never in possession. In T.S. No. 15/78 the defendants opposite parties 1 and 2 filed petition No. 2995/79 under Section 10 of the C.P.C. for staying the suit until the Second Appeal No. 6/78 arising out of M.S. No. 59/74 was finally decided by the High Court. The plaintiff petitioner filed objection thereto but the learned Assistant District Judge in his order dated 29-9-80 held that the parties and the suit land in M.S. No. 59/74 and T.S. No. 15/78 were the same; and that in both the suits the defendants claimed that they have been possessing the land at an annual rent of Rs. 7/-. The M.S. No. 59/74 was decreed for Rs. 21/- being the rent for three years; and, therefore, in the Second Appeal No. 6/78 pending before the High Court, the issue was whether the defendants-opposite parties were or were not tenants under the plaintiff-petitioner, and in both the suits the same question was to be decided; and, therefore, if by invoking S.10, C.P.C. the T.S. No. 15/78 was not stayed and it was decided during the pendency of the Second Appeal No. 6/78, there will be conflicting decisions, and, therefore, the Court invoking S.10, C.P.C. stayed the later suit, namely, T.S. No. 15/78, till the earlier M.S. No. 59/74 was finally decided in Second Appeal No. 6/78 by the High Court.

4. From the aforesaid order the plaintiff petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 24/81 in this Court. On rival intentions on the validity of the stay order Hansaria, J. observed division of opinion on the question whether a suit could be stayed in exercise of inherent power; and that relying on Monohar Lal v. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527 in AIR 1967 Orissa 172, Khali Panda v. Dharam Gauda; AIR 1972 Andh Pra 186, Manta Subbaramaya v. Batchu Narasimha Swamy, AIR 1981 Delhi 332 Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Hindustan Embroidery Mills Ltd., S.151, C.P.C. was not resorted to. On the other hand in AIR 1966 Cal 382 Jugomental Trg Republika v. Rungta and Sons; AIR 1975 All 413, Jado Rai v. Onkar Prasad and AIR 1977 Him Pra 38, Gurdial Singh v. Auckland House School it was held that despite S.10, C.P.C. recourse to S.151, C.P.C. was permissible.

5. In ILR (1978) Gau 109, Harikanta Singh v. Mustt. Khudeja Khatun after referring to Manohar Lal (supra) and various other decisions of the Supreme Court Sadanandaswamy, C.J. concluded that where the circumstances mentioned in S.10, C.P.C. are not fulfilled, it is not open to the Court to resort to its inherent powers and to stay the subsequent suit, as such an ord