This petition is directed against the order dated 6.1.90 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Nagaon in Case No. M.S. 22/89. 2. The order was passed in the above suit on the petition of the defendant under section 10 and 151 C.P.C. The defendant has prayed for the stay of the present suit on the ground that the defendant had filed a suit earlier to the present suit in the Court at Kanpur. The learned trial Court rejected the prayer for stay. Hence the present petition. 3. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned trial Court held that the suit at Kanpur was filed subsequently to the present suit before at Nagaon on the ground that though the plaint of the was filed at Kanpur on 25.11.88 it was registered only on 3.10.89 whereas the plaint of the suit at Nagaon was filed on 18.3.89 and registered on 28.3.89. 4. The learned trial Court also considered whether the matter in issue in the suit before the Kanpur Court is directly and substantially in issue in the suit filed before the Nagaon Court and on facts, was of the view that the subject matter and the period of the claim are not the same. 5. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure V to the present petition which is the copy of the order passed by the Civil Judge, Kanpur in the suit. In the order it was noted that the plaint was presented on 25.ll.fc8. and the plaintiff was asked to remove the defects as pointed out by the office Super­intendent by 23.12.1988. It is not clear what steps were taken but the suit was registered only on 3.10.89. According to Mr. Sarma the defect was only non-payment of proper court fees. But from the impugned order, I find that although the present petitioner was directed to remove the defect by 23.12.8 8, the suit was ultimately registered only on 13.10.89 as stated above. I, therefore, hold that the learned lower Court by the impugned order rightly held that the suit at Kanpur was filed and registered subsequently. 6. Mr. But from the impugned order, I find that although the present petitioner was directed to remove the defect by 23.12.8 8, the suit was ultimately registered only on 13.10.89 as stated above. I, therefore, hold that the learned lower Court by the impugned order rightly held that the suit at Kanpur was filed and registered subsequently. 6. Mr. Sanaa has tried to make out a case that registration of a case is not important and mere filing of the plaint is sufficient for the purpose of section 10 CPC, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel and in my opinion unless the suit is registered, section 10 CPC will not come into play. 7. To attract the provisions of section 10 of CPC apart from the fact that the parties to both the suits must be same, it must also be shown that the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit. In the case in hand the suit before the Court at Kanpur was for account on the basis of an agreement between the present petitioner, who was a commission agent of the present opposite party. This business of commission agent started on 24.5.77 and the prayer in the plaint (vide Annexure IV) is for a decree for account. It may be stated that the period for which account has taken has not been stated and the suit ) as been valued at Rs.l2,000/-On the other hand, in the plaint of the suit before the Nagaon Court, vide Annexure I to the present petition, it is specifically stated that between 1.4.86 to 30.4.88, the present opposite party despatched jute twine worth of Rs. 56,27.926.71 to the present petitioner who sold the goods to different parties and out of the amount realised only a part of amount wes paid and the suit has been filed for recovery of the balance amount of Rs. 3,06, 186.26. From these facts it cancel be said that the matter in issue in both the suits before the two Courts is directly and substantially same. 8. In view of the above position, the main ingredient under section 10 is absent in the case in hand. 9. 3,06, 186.26. From these facts it cancel be said that the matter in issue in both the suits before the two Courts is directly and substantially same. 8. In view of the above position, the main ingredient under section 10 is absent in the case in hand. 9. Admittedly there is an agreement between the parties and in the said agreement it was specifically agreed upon between the parties that the Court at Nagaon shall decide all disputes between the parties. Mr. Sarma has urged that this agreement cannot oust the jurisdiction of Kanpur Court and in support has relied upon All Bengal Transport Agency and others vs. Shri Hare Krishna Banik, (1984) 1 GLR 405. From para 14 of the said report I find that such a clause is not illegal as but the conditions laid down are not present in the case in hand. 10. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party has raised two points namely the plaint before the Nagacn Court is a comprehensive one, whereas the plaint of the petitioner before the Kalipur Court/is vague and secondly before the Kanpur Court the suit for accounts was valued at Rs.12,000/- whereas before the Nagaon Court the opposite party has claimed for recovery of Rs. 3, 94,817.61. On these two grounds the present petition has to be rejected. 11. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the opposity party has placed before this Court a decision of Calcutta High Court in Brijlal and Co, vs. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, AIR 1975 Calcutta 69 wherein the Court held that under section 10 CPC even if two suits are between the same parties out of the same subject matter, the suit which is filed later, being comprehensive in nature, the stay may not be granted under section 10 CPC. Reliance has also been placed by Mr. Reliance has also been placed by Mr. Das on M/s Maltex Malstors (P) Ltd. vs. Allied Engineer AIR 1975 Delhi 123 and in this case the ratio laid down in the Calcutta High Court was accepted, I am in respectful agreement with the above two decisions and I am of the opinion that if of the two suits the suit instituted first not being comprehensive and the entire disputes between the parties cannot be decided finally whereas the later suit is comprehensive one and the claim of the parties can be finally decided, no stay should be granted under section 10 CPC. 12. I have perused both the plaints and definitely the suit filed before the Kanpur Court is vague whereas the suit before the Nagaon Court is for specific claim between the parties and as such applying the above ratio, I hold that no stay as prayed for can be granted. 13. Mr. Sarma, has drawn my attention to a decision of this Court in Mohan Chandra vs. Hiuani Talnkdar, AIR 1985 Ganhati 62 wherein it was held that suit cannot be stayed under section 10 CPC and recourse to section 151 CPC would be justified. According to Mr. Sarma it is a fit case for praying the stay under section 151. In the case in hand, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel and in my opinion, there is no question of stay for ends of justice as the petitioner will not be prejudiced if no stay is granted. Mr. Sarma also stated that in the decision this Court also considered the ratio laid down in M/s Brijlal & Co. (Supra) but I am of the opinion that will not help the present petitioner. In view of what has been stated above, I do not find any merit in the present petition, and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. Send down the records immediately.