JUDGMENT Devi Prasad Singh, J.
1. Plaintiffs-petitioners have filed a Regular Suit No. 152 of 2000, Gayadeen v. Smt. Phulla Devi and Ors. for permanent injunction with a prayer to restrain Smt. Phulla Devi not to interfere with the disputed property. Subsequently, another regular suit was filed, which was registered as Regular Suit No. 246 of 2000, Smt. Phulla Devi v. Gaya Deen for cancellation of registered Will in question. Accordingly, an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved for staying proceeding of the Regular Suit No. 246 of 2000. The trial court as well as revisional court had declined to stay the proceeding of the subsequent suit on the ground that the cause of action of both the suits are not identical.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments in Ram Narain v. Ram Swarup and Ors. (V 49 C 30), followed by another judgment in Smt. Meena v. Sri Krishna Kumar and Anr. , and submits that the controversy in both the suits are directly and substantially same. Accordingly, the proceeding of subsequent suit may be stayed.
3. On the other hand, Full Bench's judgment in Ram Charan v. State of U.P. AIR 1979 All 114 and one other case in Mohd. Islam Ahmad Khan v. 1st Additional District Judge 1997 (15) LCD 915 : 1997 (2) AWC 2.227 (NOC) : 1997 (2) AWC 2.227 (NOC), has been relied upon by the respondents' counsel who proceeded to submit that since in both the suits all the issues are not same, hence the trial court as well as revisional court has rightly rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. The purpose of Section 10 is to prevent the course of concurrent jurisdiction in substantially parallel suits bearing same issues. Accordingly, in case the issues are identical in two regular suits then a court of competent jurisdiction has right to stay the proceeding of a suit till the final outcome of earlier one. Section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure is reproduced here as under:
Section 10.--No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.
5. A plain reading of Section 10 shows that the proceeding of subsequent suit may be stayed in case the matter in issue is directly and substantially same as of previously instituted suit between the parties. In the present case, in the earlier suit, i.e. Regular Suit No. 152 of 2000 only prayer for permanent injunction was made by the Plaintiffs/petitioners relying upon the registered Will. On the other hand, the respondent had filed Regular Suit No.246 of 2000 for cancellation of registered Will. Relief claimed m two suits are entirely different. In a suit of permanent injunction registered Will cannot be cancelled. Accordingly, the learned court below has rightly given a finding that facts in issue are different.
6. In the case of Ram Narain (supra) this Court had held that the object of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. It has been further held that under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure the proceeding of subsequent suit may be stayed only in case directly and substantially the issues in both the suits are same.
7. In the case of Smt. Meena Bhandari, this Court after considering the various judgments of this Court as well as Apex Court had held that four conditions are to be satisfied for staying the proceeding under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant paragraph from the case of Meena Bhandari (supra) is reproduced here as under:
Thus, there are four essential conditions for attracting the application of Section 10, C.P.C.
(1) That the matter in issue in the second suit is also directly and substantially in issue in the first suit; (2) that the parties in the second suit are the same or parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title; (3) that the Court in which the first suit is instituted is competent to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit; (4) that the previously instituted suit is pending (a) in the same Court in which the second suit is brought, or (b) in any Court in India, or (c) in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government, or (d) before the Supreme Court.
8. A plain reading of the case of Meena Bhandari (supra) shows that the issue in both the suits should be identical for staying a proceeding under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly the case law relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not extend any assistance to assail the impugned order.
9. In the case of Ram Charan (supra) the interpretation of Section 10 was a subject-matter of dispute before this Court. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Charan (supra) held that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure comes in operation when the subject-matter of the two suits or proceedings is identical. All the issues arising in the two matters must be the same. Relevant portion from the case of Ram Charan (supra) is reproduced as under:
This apart Section 10, C.P.C. will not apply on its terms. It is well-settled that Section 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure comes in operation when the subject-matter of the two suits or proceedings is identical. All the issues arising in the two matters must be the same. In ceiling proceedings the main issue is the determination of ceiling area and declaration of the rest of the land belonging to the tenure-holder as surplus land. In proceedings under the Consolidation Act no such question arises.
10. In the case of Mohd. Islam Ahmad Khan, Hon'ble single Judge of this Court had relied upon the Full Bench judgment reproduced hereinabove and held that entire subject-matter of two suits should be identical for staying of a proceeding of a suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For convenience relevant portion from the case of Mohd. Islam Ahmad Khan (supra) is reproduced here as under:
In Ram Charan v. State of U.P. and Ors. . It was held by a Full Bench of this Court (Vide Paragraph 29 that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply only if all the Issues in the two matters are the same. i.e., the entire subject-matter of the two suits are identical.
11. Another yardstick may be adopted for staying the proceeding of subsequent suit in pursuance to Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that is as to whether in case the previous suit is finally decided, the subsequent suit shall be barred by res judicata. In case, the relief claimed in both the suits are different then the proceeding of subsequent suit shall not call for interference in pursuance to power conferred by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
12. In view of the discussion made hereinabove to make out a case for interference under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is necessary that all the issues involved in the two regular suits for adjudication should be identical for staying of proceeding of the subsequent suit. As discussed hereinabove the subsequent suit, i.e., Regular Suit No. 406 of 2000 relates to cancellation of registered Will. At no stretch of imagination it could be said that controversy involved in the said suit should be identical to that of earlier one, i.e. Regular Suit No. 152 of 2000.
13. In view of the above, the impugned order does not seem to suffer from any illegality or perversity and call for no interference by this Court. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is directed to proceed with suit and decide the same expeditiously and preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
14. Subject to the above direction the writ petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.