Sangeet Lodha, J.

This petition is directed against order dated 6.9.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ratangarh, in Civil Suit No. 16/2003 rejecting an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 10. C.P.C., seeking stay of the proceedings in the suit.

2. The relevant facts are that the plaintiff, second respondent herein, preferred a suit against the petitioner and third and fourth respondent herein, before the Revenue Court, claiming declaration of khatedari rights, permanent injunction and correction of revenue record in respect of the land measuring 10 bigha 5 biswa, comprising Khasra No. 24, situated in Village-Rohi Khariya.

3. During the pendency of the revenue suit, the petitioner preferred a civil suit before the Additional District Judge, Ratangarh, seeking declaration of khatedari rights over the land in question as also for declaring the sale deed dated 18.6.2001, executed by third and fourth respondent herein, in favour of the petitioner. That apart, the permanent injunction was also sought in terms that the defendants may not interfere with cultivatory possession of the plaintiff, the second respondent, over the disputed land.

4. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 10 C.P.C., taking the stand that the matter in issue in the civil suit filed by the petitioner is directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit filed before the Revenue Court and therefore, the proceedings in the civil suit filed by the petitioner deserves to be stayed.

5. The application stands rejected by the Court below observing that in the civil suit filed the petitioner has prayed for declaring the sale deed dated 18.6.2001 as null and void, the relief which cannot be granted by the Revenue Court and therefore, the provisions of Section 10 C.P.C., are not attracted in the matter. Hence, this petition.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that admittedly in the revenue suit filed earlier, the petitioner has prayed for declaration of his khatedari rights over the land in question and has also sought injunction in the same terms as prayed for in the civil suit. Learned Counsel would submit that the declaration of sale deed as null and void is only a consequential relief, which depends upon the respondent-plaintiff proving his right, title and interest in the suit land and thus, the relief of cancellation of sale deed being ancillary relief dependent on the order to be passed in favour of the plaintiff on declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit property so as to avoid the conflicting decision on the question of right, title and interest over the disputed land, the proceedings in the civil suit deserves to be stayed invoking provisions of Section 10 C.P.C. In support of the contention, learned Counsel has relied upon decision of this Court in the matter of Aameen & Ors. v. District Judge, Churu & Ors., 2009(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1402.

7. On the other hand, Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the controversy involved in the revenue suit and the civil suit preferred by the respondent plaintiff cannot be said to be directly and substantially the same and therefore, the question of staying the proceedings in the civil suit does not arise, Learned Counsel submitted that one of the essential requirement of applicability of Section 10 C.P.C. and stay of proceedings is that the Court dealing with the previously instituted suit, ought to be competent to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit and therefore, since the relief of declaration of sale deed as null and void, cannot be granted by the Civil Court, the order impugned passed by the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

9. Indisputably, the question with regard to dec