1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, J.--- The petitioners have challenged the order, dated 11-8-2006 passed by respondent No,1 by which he has stayed further proceeding of Rent Application No,77 of 1980.
2. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that section 10 of Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to rent proceedings. He further submits that the proceedings cannot be stayed unless the matters in issue in both the proceedings are directly and substantially the same and that both the matters should be between the same parties.
3. ' The learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 to 5 has supported the order of respondent No,1 and has pointed out from the impugned order that earlier also the proceedings was stayed.
4. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available before me.
5. ' From reading section 10 of C.P.C. It appears that proceeding can be stayed. (1) If the matters in issue in both the suits must be directly and substantially the same, (2) the previously instituted suit must be pending before a competent Court and the Court is competent to grant relief, (3) both the suits must be between the same parties or their representatives, (4) and the parties are litigating in both the suits under the same title.
6. ' I have perused the order. The rent application was stayed on the basis of pendency of civil revision before the High Court of Sindh at Sukkur Bench. The learned Rent Controller has not discussed the grounds on the basis of which the proceedings can be stayed. It is an admitted position that facts of ejectment applicant and civil revision are not directly and substantially the same. Furthermore section 10 provides stay of proceedings in a subsequently instituted suit in the presence of earlier suit. An ejectment application cannot be stayed on the strength of pending suit. From the order it is clear that Rent Application No,77 of 1980 was prior in time and the civil revision was subsequent in time. Furthermore section 10 only applies when two suits are pending and the matter in both suits is same. It is also to be noted that after stay of proceedings in the subsequent suit, the decision given in the previously instituted suit will operate as res judicata by virtue of section 11 of C.P.C. This condition is not available in this case.
7. ' I, therefore, allow the petition and set aside the order, dated 11-8-2006 passed by respondent No,1 and direct him to proceed with the case expeditiously and to conclude the same within one month from the date of receipt of this order and report compliance to this Court through Additional Registrar of this Court. The parties will appear before respondent No,1 on 9-11-2006 and no Court motion notice will be issued.