1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 7.7.2014 made in I.A.No.787 of 2013 in O.S.No.203 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thiruchengode in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioners under Section 10 CPC seeking for stay of the abovesaid suit till the disposal of C.M.A.No.1838 of 2011 pending before this Court arising out of the order made in P.O.P.No.78 of 2008, dismissing the said pauper petition.

2. The petitioners are the defendants in the abovesaid suit. The respondent herein as plaintiff filed the said suit in O.S.No.203 of 2012 seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Earlier, the petitioners herein and another, filed pauper petition in P.O.P.No.78 of 2008 on the file of the District Court, Namakkal seeking permission to file the suit, as 'informa pauperis', for the relief of declaration of their title to 'B' schedule property, setting aside the sale deeds, dated 4.9.2006 and 29.9.2008 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of 'B' schedule property.

3. The plaintiff in O.S.No.203 of 2012 is the fifth respondent in the above pauper O.P. The said pauper O.P. was rejected on 25.3.2011. Challenging the same, C.M.A.No.1838 of 2011 was filed by the revision petitioners herein and the same is pending before this Court. Therefore, the petitioners seek for stay of the subsequent suit filed by the respondent herein by contending that the issue involved in both the proceedings, namely C.M.A.No.1838 of 2011 and O.S.No.203 of 2012 is one and the same between the same parties. The Court below rejected the said application by holding that on the date of filing the above application, no suit is pending and that the petitioners are trying to drag on the proceedings, especially when the witnesses on the side of the plaintiffs were cross-examined and the matter was posted for examination of the defendant's side witness.

4. Mr. V.R. Rajasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that both the proceedings are one and the same and therefore, rejection of application filed under Section 10 CPC is not correct. He further submitted that when once permission is granted to file the suit as 'informa pauperis', it dates back to the date of filing of the plaint and therefore, it should be construed that the present proceedings pending before this Court in C.M.A. is also a suit with the same issue arising between the same parties. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1962 SC 941 (Vijai Pratap Singh and another Vs. Dukh Haran Nath Singh and another) and the decision of the Kerala High Court reported in AIR 1993 Kerala 127 (Xavier alias Appachan Vs. Fr.George).

5. Per contra, Mr. P. Valliappan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that when once the pauper O.P. is dismissed, there is no suit as on date pending. Therefore, Section 10 CPC is not attracted. He further submitted that pendency of the C.M.A. before this Court arising out of the order of dismissal passed in the pauper O.P., cannot be equated with that of a suit. It is his further submission that even otherwise, the verdict in the subsequent suit will not operate as res-judicata, since the subsequent suit is only for bare injunction, whereas the petitioners' suit is for declaration of their title to 'B' schedule property and for declaring the two sale deeds as null and void. In support of his submissions, he relied on the decisions of this Court reported in 2014 (2) CTC 822 (Kamala Vs. Kulanthaivel) and 2009 (4) CTC 580 (A.Philoman Raj Vs. S.Kunna Gounder).

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

7. The point for consideration in thi