JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - (sic) (opposite party No. 3), Defendant 1(b)(opposite party No. 4) and Defendant 1(c) (Petitioner No. 2) are the partners of M/s. Sri Srinivas Timber Yard, Firm through Managing Partner Pantapati Mohan Rao (Defendant No. I-Petitioner No. I). On 12-12-1963 there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are referred to in this revision with reference to the Jeypore suit (Money Suit No. 12 of 1965). In accordance with the aforesaid agreement the Plaintiff despatched logs of timber on 2.5.1964. There were inter se transactions from 25-5-1964 to 12-8-1964. On 12 10-1964 Defendant No. 1 gave a registered notice to the Plaintiff for settlement of accounts. On 15-10-1904 the Plaintiff gave a registered notice to Defendant No. 1 claiming Rs. 44, 135. 95 paise Defendant No. 1 thereafter filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayanagaram for rendition of accounts by the Plaintiff. The plaint was returned to be filed in proper Court. On 17-11-1964 the plaint was presented before the District Munsif, Vijayanagram by Defendant No. 1. It was numbered as O.S. No 324 of 1964. On 18-12-1964 the Plaintiff appeared in the Vijayanagram suit and filed written statement on 25.1.1965. Defendant No. 2, alleged to be an agent of the Plaintiff, appeared in the Vijayanagram suit on 29-1-1965. Issues in that suit were settled on 5-3-1965. On 8-9-1965 the plain tiff filed Money Suit No. 12 of 1965 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jaypore for recovery of Rs. 48,882. 70 paise from Defendant No. 1. On 23-12-1965 the contesting Defendants filed an application u/s 10, CPC for stay of the Jeypore suit. On 1-4-1966 the Plaintiff filed an application u/s 151, CPC for injuncting the Defendants from proceeding with the Vijayanagaram suit. On 18-7-1966 the learned Subordinate Judge, Jeypore, dismissed the application for stay u/s 10, CPC and the application for injunction u/s 151, Code of Civil Procedure. Against the order refusing stay Civil Revision No. 229 of 1966 has been filed. Against the order refusing injunction Civil Revision No. 265 of 1966 has been filed. The learned Counsel Mr. Mohapatra and Mr. Against the order refusing stay Civil Revision No. 229 of 1966 has been filed. Against the order refusing injunction Civil Revision No. 265 of 1966 has been filed. The learned Counsel Mr. Mohapatra and Mr. Rao state before me that the plaint in the Jeypore suit constitutes the written statement in the Vijayanagram suit, and the plaint in the Vijayanagram suit is the written statement in the Jeypore suit substantially, excepting with regard to the reliefs sought. 2. The first question for consideration is whether the Jeypore suit would be stayed until disposal of the Vijayanagram suit which was admittedly filed earlier. Section 10, Code of Civil Procedure, so far as relevant, runs thus: 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 British India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed. The following questions would arise for determination with reference to this section: (1) Whether the matters in issue in the two suits are directly and substantially the same. (2) Whether the Munsif's Court at Vijayanagram has jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jeypore. 3. To appreciate the aforesaid two contentions it is necessary to state certain facts. In the Vijayanagram suit the prayer of Defendant No. 1 is for rendition of account', while in the Jeypore suit the Plaintiff's claim is in respect of a consolidated sum as determined by him. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif, Vijayanagram does Dot exceed Rs. 4000/-, while the Subordinate Judge, Jeypore has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. If the Plaintiff had filed the suit in the Court of the Munsif, Vijayanagram for recovery of a consolidated sum exceeding Re. 4000/- the suit is liable to be dismissed due to want of pecuniary jurisdiction. There can be no controversy on the aforesaid statement of fact. 4. It is now settled by authorities that though a Court cannot ordinarily grant a decree for an amount exceeding his pecuniary jurisdiction, there are certain exceptions to this dictum. It is not necessary to give a complete and full example of all such cases. There can be no controversy on the aforesaid statement of fact. 4. It is now settled by authorities that though a Court cannot ordinarily grant a decree for an amount exceeding his pecuniary jurisdiction, there are certain exceptions to this dictum. It is not necessary to give a complete and full example of all such cases. It would be sufficient to say that in a suit for accounts a Court of the Munsif on account being taken can grant a relief for an amount beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction when the final decree is passed. It is not necessary to increase the body of this judgment by giving the reasons already discussed in a number of allthoritative pronouncements Putta Kannayya v. Venkata Narasayya AIR 1918 Mad. 998 and Mt. Urehan Kuer Vs. Mt. Kabutri. There has been no departure from this view in any subsequent decisions. 5. The second cardinal principle arising out of settled authorities is that even in a suit for accounts where it is ultimately found in the final decree that the Defendant is entitled to get a specific sum from the Plaintiff, a decree can be passed to that effect, though initially the Defendant did not bring the suit. In other words, if in the Vijayanagram suit, on final account being taken, the Court of the Munsif comes to a conclusion that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs. 48,000/- and odd as claimed by the Plaintiff in the Jeypore suit, the Munsif can grant such a decree even though the amount is beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction AIR 1942 81 (Lahore) . It is not necessary to multiply authorities. 6. From the aforesaid two conclusions it becomes clear that on identical facts the Plaintiff and the Defendants seek different reliefs in the two Courts, and each Court can grant the relief to the Plaintiff for the specific sum claimed. The position is that the matters in issue in both the suits are directly and substantially the same, though apparently the present an idea as if they are altogether inconsistent in nature. On the same analysis the conclusion follows that the Vijayanagram Court can grant the relief claimed by the Plaintiff in the Jeypore suit. The conditions of Section 10, CPC in terms are fulfilled. 7. Mr. On the same analysis the conclusion follows that the Vijayanagram Court can grant the relief claimed by the Plaintiff in the Jeypore suit. The conditions of Section 10, CPC in terms are fulfilled. 7. Mr. Rao however contends that for the application of Section 10, CPC the Court must decide that if the Vijayanagram suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiff, the Jeypore suit would be barred by res judicata. On the aforesaid analysis, conclusion is irresistible that if in the Vijayanagram suit the Court comes to a conclusion that the Plaintiff is entitled to a particular amount or is liable to pay some amount to Defendant No. 1, then the Jeypore suit must be barred by res judicata. An identical point cannot be recanvassed in the Jeypore suit. The essence of the matter must be studied in all such cases, not the manner in which parties modulate their reliefs in the plaints. I am therefore clearly of opinion that the decision in the Vijayanagram suit would constitute res judicata for the Jeypore suit. 8. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that Section 10, CPC in terms applies and the Jeypore suit must be stayed until the disposal of the Vijayanagram suit. It follows that no injunction can be issued against the Defendants from pursuing their remedy in the Vijayanagram suit. 9. In the result, Civil Revision No. 229 of 1960 must be allowed, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside and the Jeypore suit is stayed. Civil Revision No. 265 of 1966 is dismissed. To that extent the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is upheld. In the circumstances parties to bear their own costs throughout. Final Result : Dismissed