JAMEEL AHMAD Vs. XII ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. Garg, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application moved by the present petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the proceeding in suit No. 371 of 1992. The petitioner referred a revision application No. 61 of 1994 which too has been dismissed on 23-5-2000.

(2.) HEARD Sri S. Alim Shah learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Mohit Kumar appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner place reliance on the decision of this Court reported in A. I. R. 1962 Al lahabad 108, Ram Narain v. Ram Swarap and others, in which it was held that the object of Section 10 C. P. C. is to prevent the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. It was further observed that complete identity of the subject-matter is necessary to attract the application of Section 10 and if a mat ter directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit is also directly and substantially in issue in a latter suit, then under Section 10 the later suit shall be stayed. But any matter common to the two suits will not attract the provisions of Sec tion 10. THE matter must be of substance, so that its decision in one suit shall affect materially the decision of the other suit. Reference was also made to the decision reported in A. I. R. 1983 Calcutta 199, Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. Swadeshi Sugar Supply Pvt. Ltd. , in which it was held that the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10, C. P. C. if the subject-matter of the con troversy between the two suits is the same. It was further held that even if reliance are based on different causes of action later suit should be stayed.