1. The order of the learned District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam dated 27.01.2011 made in I.A.No.1572 of 2009 in O.S.No.118 of 2009 is challenged in the present revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.118 of 2009 on the file of the trial Court. The respondents herein have filed the suit for declaration of their alleged right in the cart track shown as “A, B, C, D” in the plaint plan, for a permanent injunction not to prevent their use of the said cart track and for costs. They have claimed such a cart track right in the property comprised in S.No.95 of Allukulli Village, Gobichettipalayam Taluk, Erode District.

3. The revision petitioners, after appearing in the said suit, filed I.A.No.1572 of 2009 under Section 10 CPC for the stay of O.S.No.118 of 2009 on the premise that a former suit instituted by them in O.S.No.79 of 2009 is pending between the same parties and that the subject matter of both the suits are one and the same. The said petition was resisted by the respondents contending that the subject matter of the later suit is different from the subject matter of the former suit and the parties are also different and hence, the respondent cannot seek stay of the later suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure pending disposal of the former suit. In addition to the said contention, they also took a plea that since they had submitted a memo for the joint trial of both the suits and the Court has also accepted the memo and directed joint trial of both the suits, the prayer for stay of the subsequent suit was nothing but an attempt to protract the case and the same should be dismissed.

4. The learned trial Judge, after hearing both sides, rendered a finding that the parties in the former suit and the subsequent suit were different and the subject matter of the former suit was technically different from the subject matter of the later suit insofar as the former had been filed for declaration of absolute title in respect of the entire property, whereas the later suit was filed by the other party claiming easementary right over the said property. Based on the said finding, the learned trial Judge non-suited the revision petitioners herein for the relief sought for by them in I.A. No. 1572 of 2009. In addition to the above said ground, the learned trial Judge also referred to the joint memo filed for the joint trial of both the suits as an additional ground for dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioners.

5. Though the Reason No.1 assigned by the learned trial Judge cannot be countenanced, the order has to been sustained on the additional ground. In view of the fact that the parties had agreed for joint trial of both the cases by filing a joint memo and the further fact that the Court below has also accepted and acted upon the joint memo by directing joint trial of both the cases, the prayer made by the revision petitioners for the stay of the suit filed by the respondent is bound to be rejected. For the said reason alone, the order of the learned trial Judge is liable to be confirmed.

6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.