Short Note : So far as the first contention is concerned, it is no doubt, correct that the impugned order does not contain the essential facts to appreciate the controversy between the parties so far as the question of stay is concerned. It would have been better if the learned Judge of the trial Court would have given names of the parties and the nature of the dispute so that it may appear that the learned Judge has applied his mind to the controversy between the parties. However, on this mere technical ground, no interference in revision is warranted in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. In order to apply section 10 CPC, it is necessary that the following conditions must co-exist :- (1) That the matter in issue in the subsequent suit must also be directly and substantially is issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between the parties under whom they are or any of them claim litigating under the same title, (2) The previously instituted suit must be shown to be pending in the same Court in which the subsequent suit is brought or in any other Court in India or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government or before the Supreme Court, and (3) Where the previously instituted suit is pending in any of the Courts mentioned above, such Court must be a Court of jurisdiction competent to grant relief claimed in the subsequent suit. Radheyshyam Agarwal v. Kashinath and another, 1960 JLJ 61 relied on. AIR 1967 SC 527 and 1968 JLJ SN 7, distinguished. Revision dismissed.