JUDGMENT : RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J. 1. The instant revisional application has been filed, inter alia, challenging the Order No.23 dated 18th November, 2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Jalpaiguri, in Title Suit No. 510 of 2022, whereby the defendantno.1/petitioner’s application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , seeking dismissal of the instant suit filed by the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 was rejected. 2. To understand the scope of the present revisional application it would be necessary to briefly note down the facts. The plaintiff/ opposite party no.1 had entered into a tenancy agreement with one Shyam Sundar Pal on 17th January, 2007 and had since been occupying 250 sq. ft., in a shop room situated at Merchant Road, Jalpaiguri Town, bearing Municipal Holding No. 10/24, under Ward No.5 of Jalpaiguri Municipality. The plaintiff claims to be running a business in the name and style of Sagarika Plus from the said shop room. It is also the plaintiff’s case that the aforesaid portion of the plaintiff’s shop room had been carved out from the shop room measuring 700 sq. ft. owned by one Shyam Sundar Pal. It would further appears from the records that the plaintiff claims that the said Shyam Sundar Pal during his life time had permitted the plaintiff to use and occupy the balance 450 sq. ft. of the above shop room as a licensee and that the said Shyam Sundar Pal during his life time on 24th January, 2007 by way of a declaration, had agreed that if he sells the tenanted premises measuring 250 sq. ft., he shall sell the same to the plaintiff at a reasonable price, failing which the tenancy shall be subjected to renewal. It is also the plaintiff’s case that the petitioner herein was witness to the said declaration dated 24th January, 2007. The plaintiff’s case further proceeds on the basis that the aforesaid declaration dated 24th January, 2007 though binding on the petitioner, yet the petitioner who is the daughter and legal heir of Shyam Sundar Pal, after his demise not only decided to sell the entire suit property and entered into an agreement for sale with third parties, including the shop room but also attempted to evict the plaintiff. It is in the facts as more fully noted in the plaint, a Title Suit was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Jalpaiguri registered as T.S. 510 of 2022, inter alia praying therein the following reliefs: “a. Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and their men and agent and collaborators from entering into the suit property in Schedule below and from disturbing the Plaintiff in enjoying the suit property peacefully and also restraining the Defendants from evicting the Plaintiff from the suit property without following due process of law; b. Decree declaring that the Tenancy Agreement signed on 17.01.2024 and the Declaration dated 24.01.2024 is binding upon the Defendant No.1. c. Temporary injunction in terms of prayer “a” above; d. Cost of the suit; e. Any other relief or reliefs which Your Honour may deem fit and proper. 3. The aforesaid third parties have been arrayed as defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the above suit. The petitioner claims to be contesting the said suit by filing written statement. Subsequently on 7th March, 2024, the petitioner, as the legal heir of Shyam Sundar Pal, in her capacity as landlord of the plaintiff/ opposite party no.1, had instituted a Title Suit before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalpaiguri which has been registered as T.S. No. 176 of 2024. In the said suit the petitioner has inter alia , prayed for a decree for recovery of possession as also for other reliefs. Particulars of the reliefs sought for in the said suit are extracted herein below: (i) A decree for recovery of possession by  directing eviction of the defendant from the suit property; (ii) A decree for mesne profits against the defendant @ Rs.100 per diem calculated on and from the period of unauthorized occupation of he defendant till the date of actual delivery of physical possession of the suit property by the defendant unto the plaintiff; (iii) A decree for perpetual injunction against the defendant restraining her from entering into the suit property and from committing any act prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiff in the suit property; (iv) Temporary injunction; (v) Cost of the suit; (vi) Any other relief to which the plaintiff may be found to be entitled to under law and equity. 4. 4. Simultaneously, with the filing of the aforesaid suit the petitioner also filed an application in the suit filed by the plaintiff/opposite party no.1, by invoking the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure , inter alia, praying for dismissal of the suit on the ground that consequent upon the petitioner having filed the suit for eviction, the suit filed by the plaintiff/ opposite party no.1 is no longer maintainable. The said application came to be rejected by an order dated 11th November, 2024 which forms the subject matter of challenge in the above revisional application. 5. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing in support of the aforesaid revisional application would submit that the cause of action of both the suits is the same. He would submit that in the first suit the opposite party no.1 as plaintiff has sought for protection of her tenancy rights. Once, the petitioner has filed a suit for eviction, it necessarily follows that the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 cannot be evicted without due process of law. He would submit that the prior suit filed by the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 thus having become infructuous is not permitted to continue any further and the petitioner as defendant no.1 in the suit had rightly invoked the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of an infructuous suit. He would submit that the issue whether an infructuous suit can be dismissed by invoking the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is no longer res integra and such point has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado Brothers and Others, (2004) 11 SCC 168 . Having regard thereto, he would submit that the learned Judge failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him in rejecting the application as not maintainable since, the same was filed by invoking the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure . 6. Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and considering the materials on record it would transpire that the first suit instituted by the opposite party no.1 being T.S. No. 510 of 2022 deals with not only protection of the opposite party no.1’s tenancy rights but also for a decree for declaration that the declaration dated 24th January, 2007 is binding on the petitioner. As noted above, the said declaration is in relation to an agreement whereby the petitioner’s predecessor had agreed that in the event of sale of the suit property, the same shall be transferred in favour of the opposite party no.1 at a reasonable price, alternatively, the tenancy shall be renewed. It would also transpire from a perusal of the plaint filed in this suit that the plaintiff’s cause of action is also directed against the third-party agreement holders who had entered into an agreement with the petitioner for sale of the suit property as according to the plaintiff/ opposite party no.1 they also attempted to evict the opposite party no.1. 7. Having regard thereto, it is very difficult to accept the contention of Mr. Ghosh, that immediately upon filing of the subsequent suit by the petitioner, the suit filed by the opposite party no.1 had become infructuous. No case for invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been made out. There is no irregularity in the order passed by the learned Judge. 8. The revisional application fails and is accordingly dismissed. 9. At this stage, the learned advocate for the petitioner prays that both the suits may be analogously heard and an appropriate direction may be passed in that regard. Mr. Ray, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.1 does not raise any objection. Having regard thereto, let both the suits being T.S. 510 of 2022 as also T.S. 176 of 2024 both pending before the court of the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Jalpaiguri be taken up for hearing together. 10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made over to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.