Short Note : 1. This is defendant's application under section 115 CPC, against an order dated 5-5-1976 passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Garoth, in Civil Suit No. 24-1/74, whereby he refused to frame an issue regarding stay of this subsequent suit under section 10, CPC. Held; It may be noted that the applicant defendant's application was only for framing of an additional issue regarding stay of suit and not for the actual stay of the suit. However, the learned Judge, by the impugned order, has held that it is not necessary to stay the subsequent suit for which there was no application. It was not disputed that the provisions of section 10 CPC, are mandatory However, the order of consolidation of both the suits arising out of the same contract and between the same parties cannot be said to have caused and prejudice to the applicant. Similarly, the suits having been thus consolidated, they will be tried together and, in these circumstances, the question of staying the subsequently instituted suit does not arise nor does it prejudicially affect the applicant's case as, even according to the applicant himself, some of the preliminary issues arising in the suit filed by him have already been decided against him and, even if the subsequently instituted suit is not stayed, it is not likely to result in failure of justice nor can it be said that it would cause irreparable injury to the applicant, as both the suit have been consolidated and, therefore, will be decided simultaneously. Thus, no useful purpose will be served by framing additional issue sought to be framed by the applicant or by actually staying the subsequently instituted suit. Revision dismissed.