ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, JJ. ( 1 ) ONE Narendra Nath Law was the absolute owner of premises No. 96 raja Rammohan Sarani, Calcutta. He died leaving a will by making his son arun Kumar Law as the sole beneficiary whereas his wife Smt. Niharmoni Law was given life interest under the said will. Both Niharmoni and Arun (hereinafter referred to as "laws") entered into a development agreement along with one raja Ram Estate. Under the agreement Raja Ram Estate was to develop the property upon such terms and conditions as recorded in the said agreement. By a further agreement a portion of the said property was agreed to be sold to 'raja Ram by Laws. Prior to such agreement being entered into Laws entered into another agreement with a third party for which a litigation was then pending which was settled at the instance of Raja Ram. According to Raja Ram they not only paid substantial sums to Laws but also took steps for eviction of tenants and/or occupants from the said premises in question. They also caused the municipal plan sanctioned and at the stage when they were to commence construction Laws denied their obligation under the contract and filed a suit in the City Civil Court for cancellation of the agreement being Title Suit No. 1051 of 2005. On perusal of the plaint filed before the City Civil Court it appears that laws contended that they were ignorant in law and whatever documents the advocates-on-Record for Raja Ram asked them to sign they did so without understanding implication of it. According to them, as per the will they were not entitled to dispose of the property and as such the documents executed by them should be declared as cancelled. On the contrary, Raja Ram contended that Laws were represented by two Advocates namely Sri P. K. Sen Barat, solicitor and R. N. Basu Mullick, Advocate at the relevant point of time. Moreover, they accepted substantial sums under the agreement. Raja Ram filed a suit in this Court being Commercial Suit No. 267 of 2005, inter alia, claiming for specific performance of the development agreement. Raja Ram also made application for appointment of Receiver and for other reliefs being G. A. No. 3546 of 2005. A special officer was appointed who submitted a report giving details of the occupants staying at the said premises in question. Raja Ram also made application for appointment of Receiver and for other reliefs being G. A. No. 3546 of 2005. A special officer was appointed who submitted a report giving details of the occupants staying at the said premises in question. Raja Ram filed an application for transfer of the City Civil Court suit to this Court being A. L. P. No. 18 of 2005 whereas Laws filed an application for stay of Civil Suit No. 267 of 2005 under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure being GA. No. 3649 of 2005. ( 2 ) THOSE three application were heard by me analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. Cases cited by the parties: (i) AIR 1957 Cal. 727 (Shorab Merwanji Modi and Anr. v. Mansata Film distributors and Anr.), (ii) AIR 1971 Cal. 345 (Life Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. Bengal Medical hall), (iii) AIR 1975 Cal. 69 (Brijlal and Company v. Madhya Pradesh Electricity board.), (iv)' air 1975 Cal. 411 (Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. v. Bholanath Madanlal sherawala and Ors.), (v) AIR 1983 Cal. 199 (Challapalli Sugars Limited v. Swadeshi Sugar supply Pvt. Ltd.), (vi) AIR 1985, Cat. 154 (Adhish Chandra Sinha v. Hindustan Gas and industries Ltd. and Anr.), (vii) AIR 1988, Cal. 183 (J. C. Roy Chowdhuryv. M/s. Krishna Paper Board mills and Ors.), section 10: rigid Construction : ( 3 ) IF one goes by the words of the section it would appear that to obtain an order of stay the Court has to be satisfied :- (i) Suit liable to be stayed is a later suit, (ii) Both the suits are between the same parties or, (ii) (a) Between the parties under whom they or any of them litigating under the same title, (iii) Both the suits are pending either in the same Court or any other court within the country. ( 4 ) ON a plain reading of the said section and the analysis as above it would appear that if on a self same cause of action between the same parties two suits are filed in one Court or in different Courts of the country the post suit should be stayed till the disposal of the prior suit. ( 4 ) ON a plain reading of the said section and the analysis as above it would appear that if on a self same cause of action between the same parties two suits are filed in one Court or in different Courts of the country the post suit should be stayed till the disposal of the prior suit. Harmonious construction on a combined reading of the precedents referred to above: ( 5 ) TO decide whether the second suit is hit by Section 10 or not the test is to find out whether the plaint in one suit would be the written statement in the other suit or not. Once such test is positive a decision in one suit would operate as res judicata in the other suit. That is the principal test on which Section 10 is applied. The parties, in my view, may not be the same as one suit may have one additional party that would not make Section 10 inapplicable. ( 6 ) THE observation of the Division Bench in the case of Shorab Merwanji modi (supra) being relevant herein is quoted below :-"if the Calcutta plaintiffs defence in the Bombay suit is substantially his plaint in Calcutta suit and if the Bombay plaintiffs defence in the calcutta suit is virtually his plaint in the Bombay suit, the matter in issue between the parties in the two suits would seem to be substantially the same, The fact that one is a suit under the agreements and the other is a suit de hors the agreements does not make a substantial identity of the subject-matter perse impossible. " ( 7 ) WHEN a suit comes up for regular hearing on contest Court frames issue considering the pleadings and once plaint and written statement are taken together the Court has to frame issue after finding out on which point the parties are joining issue and for that not only the plaint but also the written statement is equally important. ( 8 ) IN this regard the observation of this Court in the case of Life pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) being relevant herein is quoted below :-"in my opinion, the test to be applied in deciding an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is whether the matter in the later suit will be res judicata if the prior suit is taken to have been decreed in the manner as prayed in the plaint. "my View: ( 9 ) IN the present case City Civil Court suit was for cancellation of the development agreement whereas the Calcutta suit is for specific performance of the same. Hence validity of the agreement is a common feature in both the suits. If I take into account the said factor only the second suit is liable to be stayed. However, let us examine whether the judgment of the first suit can apply as resjudicata in the later suit or not. If the City Civil Court suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and thereby the development agreement is declared as cancelled the High Court suit being the later one would automatically fail. However, if the City Civil Court suit is dismissed the High Court suit is not automatically decreed as it would depend upon satisfaction of more precondition in a1 suit for specific performance. Even if the City Civil Court suit is dismissed the plaintiff in High Court suit would have to prove that they were satisfied with the title of the Laws and they were and still are ready and willing to perform their obligation under the agreement and the Court has to give its opinion on adjudication of the said issues. Hence, the Calcutta suit, in my view, is not liable to be stayed. Reference may be drawn to the decision of this Court in the case ot Adhish Chandra Sinha (supra ). There this Court held that,one common factor might be existing in both the suits. That would not make the second suit hit by section 10. In the decision in the case of Brijlal and Company (supra), Masud. J. held that since the entire controversy between the parties could not be finally resolved in the first suit and the second suit was more comprehensive the later suit should not be stayed although there were some common issues in both the suits. In the decision in the case of Brijlal and Company (supra), Masud. J. held that since the entire controversy between the parties could not be finally resolved in the first suit and the second suit was more comprehensive the later suit should not be stayed although there were some common issues in both the suits. Relying on the said decisions, in my view, it would be just and proper that the City Civil Court should be brought to this Court and both the suits be clubbed together and be heard analogously which would render Justice to both the parties. Result: ( 10 ) A. L. P. No. 18 of 2005 is allowed. Title Suit No. 1051 of 2005 pending before the City Civil Court, Calcutta be transferred to this Court and be heard analogously along with Civil Suit No. 267 of 2005. Till both the suits are heard analogously the parties must maintain sfafus quo with regard to the property in question. All the applications being G. A. No. 3546 of 2005, G. A. No. 3649 of 2005 and A. L. P. No. 18 of 2005 are disposed of accordingly without, however, any order as to costs.