Prasanta Kumar Deka, J.

1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Kataki, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. C. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. In this revision application, order dated 09.03.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 172/2008 by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Cachar, Silchar is challenged. The present petitioner is the defendant in Title Suit No. 172/2008 filed by the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent filed the suit for ejectment of the defendant/petitioner from the suit premises as he violated the terms of the tenancy under the Rent Control Act The defendant/petitioner filed his written statement denying the contents including the relation of landlord and tenant between the parties to the said suit. Prior to that the present petitioner as the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 154/1995 in the court of learned Asstt. District Judge No. 1, Cachar, Silchar against the present respondent as the defendant for Specific Performance of contract with respect to the same suit premises which is the suit premises in the ejectment suit. The said suit for specific performance of contract was decreed against the present respondent who preferred Title Appeal No. 25/2006 before the learned District Judge, Cachar and the said Title Appeal was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 27.06.2012. The present petitioner thereafter preferred RSA 158/2012 in this Court and the same was already admitted and awaiting its disposal.

2. Behind such a scenario the present petitioner preferred the application under Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) with a prayer to stay further proceeding of Title Suit No. 172/2008. The stay petition was registered as petition No. 994/2011 in Title Suit No. 172/2008. The present respondent against the said application under Section 10 of the CPC filed his written objection thereto raising that the requisite ingredients for invoking the jurisdiction under Section 10 of the CPC by the learned court below are missing and as such the application is liable to be dismissed. The learned court below vide the order impugned herein dismissed the said application under Section 10 of the CPC holding that the requirement of the said provision of the CPC are not attracted in the case in hand. Being aggrieved the present revision petition has been preferred.

3. Mr. Sahewalla, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the subject matter of the suit including the parties and the matter in issue are similar to the one which was filed by the present petitioner. Further, it is submitted that the present petitioner is holding the possession of the suit premises on the strength of the agreement for sale which was once decreed for its performance by the present respondent and that too with respect to the suit premise in Title Suit No. 172/2008. Subsequent thereto the present second appeal is pending as against the reversal of the finding of the trial court. Under such circumstances, the learned court below ought to have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC for staying the subsequent suit. Relying Mohan Chandra Deka v. Smti Himani Talukdar & Ors. reported in AIR 1985 Gauhati 62, the learned senior counsel submits that this court held that by taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in ONGC, Nazira v. Ganesh Prasad Singh, held that in cases not covered by the provisions of Section 10 CPC in terms the court may, in very exceptional circumstances stay a suit under Section 151 of the CPC as the inherent jurisdiction of the court to make orders ex-debito justice is undoubtedly affirmed by Section 151 CPC. The said decision also discussed the ratio laid down in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rai Raja Seth Hiralal reported in 1962 SC 527 wherein it was held that to pass orders under Section 151 for ends of justice or preventing abuse o