Order This civil revision by the plaintiff is directed against the order dated 27.1.97 passed by the 1st Subordinate Judge, Buxar, in Mortgage Suit, No. 28 of 1995 staying the suit till disposal of F.A. No. 653 of 1995 pending in this Court. Sanjay Kumar Rai, who is defendant no. 1 of the present suit i.e. Mortgage Suit No. 28 of 1995, filed Title Suit No. 135 of 1993 in the court of 1st Subordinate Judge, Buxar. for declaration that the defendant-Bank is not entitled to charge compound interest on the principal amount of loan taken by him and the plaintiff is entitled to receive back all additional amount adjudged after calculating the principal amount and simple interest thereto till the date of filing of the suit. The suit was decreed on 29.5.95 in the following terms: "...... the plaintiff is entitled to the relief to the extent that the defendants, are not entitled to charge any compound interest on the principal amount of loan taken by the plaintiff......" The present suit was filed by the bank, that is, Central Bank of India on 10.3.95 seeking a decree for the Sum of Rs. 1, 42, 762.70 P. with interest 12.50. In response to observation of the Court, counsel for the petitioner stated that the aforesaid amount has been worked but by calculating interest at the compound rates. He however submitted that as per the terms of the agreement the bank is entitled to realize interest at compound rates. For the purpose of the civil revision it is not necessary to go into the merit of the case of the parties. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ingredients of section 10 of the Code are not made out. In as much as the subject matter of the two suits is not the same and the parties are also not common. He relied on a decision of Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1975 Calcutta 69. Section 10 of the Code comes into play where the matter in issue in the subsequent suit is directly and substantially the same as in the previously instituted suit between the same parties or the parties claiming under them. There are however, decisions which have taken the view that it is not necessary that all the parties to the suit should be common. It is the common case that defendant no. There are however, decisions which have taken the view that it is not necessary that all the parties to the suit should be common. It is the common case that defendant no. 1, Sanjay Kumar Rai, is the loanee, the other defendants are merely guarantors. Sanjay Kumar Rai has filed suit as loanee. I do not think merely because the guarantors did not figure as plaintiffs in the previous suit, section 10 would be in applicable. One of the test for determining the question of stay under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is whether decision in the previous suit would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. In the present case, I have no doubt. In my mind that the court having already held in inters party judgment that the bank is not entitled to calculate and realize interest at compound rates, the claim of the plaintiff- bank to that extent is barred by res-judicata, subject of course to the decision by this Court in the aforementioned First Appeal. There cannot be any doubt that the question as to whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to realize interest at Compound rates was directly and substantially an issue in the previous suit, now subject matter of the First Appeal. The court below, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any error of law in staying the trial of the present suit. The civil revision, in the circumstances is dismissed. I would, however, observe that it will be open to the petitioner to suitably amend its pleadings and apply for modification of the order of stay under section 10 of the Code in accordance with law.