JUDGMENT :

These writ petitions have been ordered to be heard together and are being heard together and accordingly, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The relief sought for in these writ petitions is for setting aside the order dated 12.01.2017 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 02 of 2006 (subject matter of W.P. (C) No. 2883 of 2017); order dated 23.06.2016 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 04 of 2006 (subject matter of W.P. (C) No. 5782 of 2016); order dated 23.06.2016 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 05 of 2006 (subject matter of W.P. (C) No. 5788 of 2016); order dated 23.06.2016 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 06 of 2006 (subject matter of W.P. (C) No. 5794 of 2016) and order dated 23.06.2016 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 03 of 2006 (subject matter of W.P. (C) No. 5802 of 2016), by which, the petition filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petitions, is that the respondent has filed Title Suit against original defendant under Section 11 of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011, in which, the defendants/ petitioners have appeared and are contesting the suits against the ejectment from the premises in question by filing written statement therein denying the title of the plaintiff and claimed that one Baijnath Singh as his real owner and he is paying rent to one Chandrashekhar Singh, S/o Baijnath Singh regularly, who is the original landlord and who has filed Title Suit being Title Suit No. 26 of 2005 under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act claiming his right over the suit property as said Baijnath Singh is one of the co-sharer of the property in question, which has wrongly been transferred in the name of the plaintiff of the case and the case is still pending before the competent Court.

4. In such background, petition under Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed for stay of the proceeding pertaining to respective Title Eviction Suits. Rejoinder to the petition has been filed raising the maintainability of the petition filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and after having heard the parties, orders have been passed, which are impugned in these writ petitions.

5. Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial Court while rejecting the petition under Section 10 of the Code or Civil Procedure has committed gross illegality by not appreciating the legal position of applicability of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure since according to him when two suits are going on then the previous suit would be allowed to continue and as because the Title Suit has been filed prior to Eviction Suit, therefore, the Eviction Suit ought to have been stayed since the essence of both the suits are same.

6. Ms. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has seriously objected to the submission and ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable only when the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit between the same parties but herein the issues in both the suits are not directly or substantially in issue since the Title Suit is for declaration of the right and title whereas the Eviction Suit is for eviction and, therefore, in both the cases two different issues are to be contested and answered by the competent Court of jurisdiction.

7. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their rival submissions, this Court deems it fit and proper before going into the legality and propriety of the impugned orders to go through the provision of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:

“10.Stay of suit. – No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also