JUDGMENT The applicant/plaintiff is aggrieved by order dated 11.11.1994 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Ratlam, in Civil Suit No. 15B/93, allowed the defendants' application u/s. 10 of the CPC and stayed the plaintiff's suit. The applicant/plaintiff's suit is for recovery of damages of Rs. 1,05,000/- for alleged breach of contract by the defendants for supply of certain goods. According to the plaintiff, the respondent/defendant No. 1 Meenu Singhania runs his business in the name and style "Shri Interplast Industries", the respondent No. 2. On service of summons of the suit, the defendants put in their appearance and filed application u/s. 10 of the CPC along with a copy of plaint of a suit filed by M/s. Hindustan Exports Enterprise, a partnership firm against the plaintiffs proprietorship firms namely Ajit Plastic Industries and Indore Plastic Corporation in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, and prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff in Ratlam Court be stayed till the decision of the suit filed in Bombay High Court. The suit filed in Bombay High Court is admittedly prior in time. The Court below on consideration of the pleadings of the two suits came to the conclusion that the matter in issue in both the suits is substantially the same and that there is also identity of the parties. On these premises, the learned Judge allowed the defendants' application and stayed further proceedings in the subsequent suit pending decision of the former suit. I have heard Shri K.C. Gangrade, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.R. Kochatta, learned counsel for the respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no identity of the parties in the two suits inasmuch as the plaintiff in these suits are different. It is further contended that the present suit filed by the applicant relates to three contracts entered into in the months of February, March and April, 1987 whereas the suit filed in Bombay High Court pertains to only one contract of the month of March, 1987. It was thus contended that there is errors both of fact and law committed by the Court below in passing the order impugned. It was thus contended that there is errors both of fact and law committed by the Court below in passing the order impugned. As against it, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that respondent No. 2 "Shri Interplast Industries" is a sister concern of M/s. Hindustan Exports Enterprise, which is a partnership firm and of which the respondent No. 1 Meenu Singhania is a partner. The learned counsel read out from the pleadings and the documents filed therewith to show that the plaintiff in his dealing in respect of the transactions in question, has been corresponding jointly with the "Shri Interplast Industries" and M/s Hindustan Exports Enterprise. It was further contended that in-fact there was only one contract of supply of goods consisting of series of transactions. In M/s. D.L.F. Housing and Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh and others ( AIR 1971 SC 2324 ) it has been held; "While exercising the jurisdiction under S. 115, it is not competent to the High Court to correct errors of fact however gross or even errors of law unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. The words "illegally" and "with material irregularity" as used in C 1. (c) do not cover either errors of fact or of law; they do not refer to the decision arrived at but merely to the manner in which it is reached. The errors contemplated by this clause may relate either to breach of some provision of law or to material defects of procedure affecting the ultimate decision, and not to errors either of fact or of law, after the prescribed formalities have been complied with". In the instant case, there is material on the record to show that both the suits relate to the same contract of supply of goods. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that Court below has committed an error which relates either to breach of some provision of law or to material defect of procedure affecting the ultimate decision. In fact, nothing has been decided against the applicant and so even if the order impugned is allowed to stay, it is not likely to cause an irreparable injury to the applicant or occasion failure of justice. No case for interference in revision is made out. 6. In fact, nothing has been decided against the applicant and so even if the order impugned is allowed to stay, it is not likely to cause an irreparable injury to the applicant or occasion failure of justice. No case for interference in revision is made out. 6. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed but without any order as to the costs.