ORDER :- Heard Sri V. K. Bisht, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri Sushil Vashisth, counsel for the revisionist and Sri Chandra- mauli and Sri Suresh Bhatt, counsel for the respondent. 2. By the present civil revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the revisionist has prayed for setting aside the order dated 1st May, 2001 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nainital. 3. Briefly stated, suit was filed by the applicant being Suit No. 540 of 1996 by Sri Ravindra Kumar Agarwal against M/s. Cheema Papers Mills praying for a decree of an amount of Rs. 100,893.00 as well as the decree for pendente lite and future interest. 4. In another suit (Suit No. 540 of 1996), the plaintiff Ravindra Kumar Agarwal has claimed in paragraph 8 of the plaint that vide Invoice No. 9/6 April, 1992 Paper weighing 437 Kg. was supplied to various firms and the consumers have complained to the plaintiff Ravindra Kumar about the bad quality of papers, when he sought to receive the payment of the Invoice. Paragraph 8 of the plaint is quoted below : "8. That vide invoice No. 9 dated 6-4-1992 paper weighing 4397 kilogram was supplied to M/s. Vindhyavasini Corrugator (P) Ltd., Basti; and vide invoice No. 16 dated 8-4-1992 paper weighing 9396 Kilogram was supplied to M/s. Sohni Packagers (P) Ltd., Allahabad, and vide invoice No. 23 dated 11-4-1992 paper weighing 10741 Kilogram was supplied to M/s. Jamuna Fabricators, Allahabad. Consumers concerned complained to the plaintiff about bad quality of paper when he sought to receive payment of the respective invoices. Plaintiff soon thereafter informed the defendant company in writing about the complaints of the said consignees in respect of bad qualities of paper and thereafter settled the matter with the consignees and obtained payment by allowing them rebate at the rate of Rupee one per Kilogram commensurate with the quality of the paper. Total amount of compensation granted as such was Rupees 24,534/- only." 5. Paragraph 34 relates to the cause of action. It reads as under :- "34. Total amount of compensation granted as such was Rupees 24,534/- only." 5. Paragraph 34 relates to the cause of action. It reads as under :- "34. That cause of action for the suit arose within the jurisdiction of this Court when sub-standard and poor quality papers were supplied to the consignees and on 4-6-1992 when plaintiff complained to the defendant company in writing about the supply of sub-standard papers and payments made by the consignees at rebates and informed the defendant company that this account has been debited with the amounts of rebate deducted by the consignees from their invoices and also when plaintiff sent advance deposit money by Bank draft dated 4-6-1992 of Benares State Bank Ltd., Allahabad, and on 19-4-1992 when defendant company supplied defective and deplorably bad quality paper to M/s. Prayag Packaging Industries, Allahabad vide invoice No. 34 dated 19-4-1992 and vide invoice No. 49 dated 25-4-1992 and on 23-4-1992 when plaintiff had a talk on phone with Sri B. S. Cheema, director, and sought his advice about the aforesaid supply of defective and deplorably bad quality of papers and when the consignee concerned accepted the said rotten goods on a discount of Rs. 4/- per kilogram and on 29-6-1992 when plaintiff wrote to the defendant company to send credit notes of the amounts of rebates suffered by the plaintiff and on 29-9-1993 when plaintiff vide his letter of the said date sent to the defendant company detailed account of all the rebates granted on invoices pertaining to the defective quality of consignments and when plaintiff received defendant's letter dated 23-3-1994 admitting to have received complaints of the plaintiff concerning supply of sub-standard papers and resultant losses by way of rebates and on 6-4-1994 when defendant company partly admitted its liability and on 18-4-1994 when plaintiff received from Prayag Packaging Industries, Allahabad consignee concerned copy of the letter of the defendant company dated 28-3-1994 with the reply of the said consignee to the defendant company and on 18-4-1994 when plaintiff sent up-to-date statement of account to the defendant and company claiming the outstanding amount due to the plaintiff as agent of the defendant company in reply to their claim of Rs. 92000/- and on 19-4-1994 when a registered notice was given to the defendant company of recovery of plaintiff's dues and on 3-1-1996 when defendant company making a wrong entry informed the defendant company on 1-4-1995 was Rs. 91,232.88 paisa and on 26-9-1996 when plaintiff received vakaltan notice of the defendant dated 23-9-1996 with wrong allegations denying the claim of the plaintiff and this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit since orders were received in Allahabad and payments were sent by the plaintiff to the defendant from Allahabad vide Bank drafts, and since defendant company being in the position of debtor was liable to remit payment of the outstanding debt to the plaintiff at his place of business in Allahabad." 6. Another suit was filed being Suit No. 37 of 1997 M/s. Cheema Paper Mills (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Dwarika Trading Corporation for the decree of realization of an amount of Rs. 1,55,919.92 paisa along with interest @ 24% per annum. In suit No. 37 of 1997, the plaintiff has claimed himself to be the Industrial Unit situated at Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. In paragraph 5 of the plaint, it has been stated that on the order placed by the defendant company, the supply was made by the plaintiff company and the amount having not been paid, present suit has been filed. 7. Paragraph 5 of the plaint is quoted below :- (Vernacular matter omitted...........Ed.) 8. So far as cause of action is concerned, Paragraph 9 is quoted below :- (Vernacular matter omitted...........Ed.) 9. As will appear from the above that the cause of action in both the suits are quite different and the claims are also different. 10. The plaintiff in Suit No. 37 of 1997 has filed an application for staying the proceedings under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that both the suits are of the same nature and therefore, since he has filed earlier suit in the year, 1996, therefore, till the suit filed by the plaintiff is decided the proceedings of the present Suit No. 37 of 1997 may remain stayed. 11. The Civil Judge has rejected the application and hence present revision has been filed. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under : "10. 11. The Civil Judge has rejected the application and hence present revision has been filed. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under : "10. Stay of suit.- No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court." 12. A perusal of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure shows that provision can be invoked where the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. 13. Counsel for the revisionist has referred the judgment of Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527, where it has been observed as under : "It is clear, therefore, that the Legislature had contemplated the contingency of two suits with respect to similar reliefs being instituted and of the institutions of a suit in one Court when it could also be instituted in another Court and it be preferable, for certain reasons, that the suit be tried in other Court." 14. Counsel for the applicant has referred the decision of Mirta Lina Pv. Ltd. v. Finlay Mills Ltd., AIR 1982 Calcutta Page 41, where it has been observed as under : "3. Thirdly, the 'matter in issue' contemplated by S. 10 means disputed material questions in the subsequent suit, which are directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit, and matters not in issue cannot be regarded as heard or finally decided so as to operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. This being so, any decision in the earlier suit cannot non-suit the plaintiff in the subsequent proceedings and the ratio decidendi of the case reported in AIR 1975 Cal 411, is plainly attracted. This being so, any decision in the earlier suit cannot non-suit the plaintiff in the subsequent proceedings and the ratio decidendi of the case reported in AIR 1975 Cal 411, is plainly attracted. As observed by the Divisional Bench, it is well settled that unless an issue is framed and decided by a Court, it cannot operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies. 15. Counsel for the applicant has referred the decision of Gauri Bala Dutta v. IIIrd Addl. Civil Judge, Varanasi and another, AIR 1991 All 216, where it has been observed as under : "14. I have given my careful consideration to the submission raised by the counsel for the parties on both the points. So far as the second point in the case is concerned regarding staying the hearing of the appeal during the pendency of the petitioner's Civil Suit No. 480 of 1983, I am clearly of the opinion that the Court below committed no error in rejecting the petitioner's application. This is settled by the decisions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the powers under S. 151 of the Civil P.C. can be invoked only when there is no other provision in the Code for exercising such powers. In the present case, the Civil P.C. S. 10 specifically laid down that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between the parties under whom they or any of them litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India." 16. The aforesaid decisions referred by the revisionist relates to the applicability of the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same has no application in the present case. 17. In Shri Ram Tiwary v. Bholi Devi, AIR 1994 Patna 76, it has been observed as under :- "14. I am unable to agree with his submission on this point also. The object of Section 10 of the Code, as noticed above, is to avoid the conflicting judgments between the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction. 17. In Shri Ram Tiwary v. Bholi Devi, AIR 1994 Patna 76, it has been observed as under :- "14. I am unable to agree with his submission on this point also. The object of Section 10 of the Code, as noticed above, is to avoid the conflicting judgments between the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction. Section does not require that the matter in issue in both the suits should be same, its only requirement that the matter in issue in both the suits should be directly and substantially the same. To decide the said question the test to be applied is whether the decision in the former suit will operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit or not. If after looking into the records the Court comes to the conclusion that the decision in former suit will operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit or non-suit the plaintiff, then it has to stay the suit. The decision in the case of Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd., (AIR 1975 Cal 411) (supra) relied by the counsel for the petitioners, in my view, does not support his submission. In the said case it was held (at page 412) : "Unless the decision of the suit operates as res judicata in the other suit it cannot be said that the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same in both the suits, that is to say, the decision in one suit must non-suit the other suit before it can be said that the matter in issue in both the suits is directly and substantially the same." A learned single Judge of this Court considering the aforesaid question in the case of M/s. Fulchand Motilal v. M/s. Manohar Lall Jetha Lal Mehta, reported in AIR 1973 Pat 196, held as follows (para 7) : "For determining whether or not the matter directly and substantially in issue in former as well as subsequent suits is the same, the rest to be applied is whether adjudication of the matter directly and substantially arising in the former suit will decide not merely that suit but will also operate as res judicata in subsequent suit between the same parties, and not whether the cause of action or reliefs claimed and/or one of the issues arising in both the suits are the same." 18. As will appear from the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court that in order to attract Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment of the earlier suit has to be operative as res judicata in the later suit. Here both relates to the different transactions and relates to supply of materials at different dates and as such the principles of res judicata having no application, the aforesaid judgments cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. I have also perused the points in both the suits, the cause of action is also different in both the suits and therefore, res judicata has no application in the present case. 19. On the other hand counsel for the respondent has referred the judgment of National Institute of Medical Health and Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara, AIR 2005 SC 242, where it has been observed as under : "8. The object underlying Section 10 is to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. The object underlying Section 10 is to avoid two parallel trials on the same issue by two Courts and to avoid recording of conflicting findings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit. The language of Section 10 suggests that it is referable to a suit instituted in the civil Court and it cannot apply to proceedings of other nature instituted under any other statute. The object of Section 10 is to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits between the same parties in respect of the same matter in issue. The fundamental test to attract Section 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject-matter in both the suits is identical. The key words in Section 10 are "the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue" in the previous instituted suit. The words "directly and substantially in issue" are used on contradistinction to the words "incidentally or collaterally in issue". Therefore, Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of the matter in issue in both the suits, meaning thereby, that the whole of subject-matter in both the proceedings is identical." 20. The words "directly and substantially in issue" are used on contradistinction to the words "incidentally or collaterally in issue". Therefore, Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of the matter in issue in both the suits, meaning thereby, that the whole of subject-matter in both the proceedings is identical." 20. It has been rightly pointed out by the Apex Court in the case of National Institute Medical Health, AIR 2005 SC 242 (supra) in which the words "directly" "substantially" has been interpreted. Therefore, since there is no identity in the matter in issue in both the suits, there is no occasion to apply the provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further Suit No. 37 of 1997 is pending at Uttarakhand, whereas the Suit No. 540 of 1996 is pending at Uttar Pradesh there being no identity of the cause of action between the two suits, the matter in issue being also different, the jurisdiction exercised by the trial Court, therefore, while refusing to stay the suit proceedings requires no interference, the revision lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 21. Consequently, revision is dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed.