Judgment Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. According to learned counsel for the appellants, in Company petition no. 01 of 1958 (P), winding up order was passed on 21.05.1958 against respondent no.1, Company in liquidation. However, one suit was filed by the plaintiffs father along with four other plaintiffs before the Court of Munsif, Hazaribagh in the year 1971 and proceedings of said suit was stayed by the trial Court in view of the pendency of the Company petition no.1 of 1958 and because of passing of winding up order against the Company in liquidation and because of appointment of Official Liquidator. 3. According to learned counsel for the appellants, in the Company petition no. 01 of 1958 (P), one order was passed, however, the copy of said order is not with the appellants, because of which same plaintiffs filed another suit in Patna High Court in the year 1975 which was registered as Title Suit No. 01 of 1975. Suit No. 01 of 1975 was tagged with the Company petition no. 01 of 1958(P). This suit continued in Patna High Court for a long couple of years, then transferred to Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court. 4. Be that as it may, after transfer of the suit to Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court, and ultimately transfer to Jharkhand High Court after creation of Jharkhand State and the Jharkhand High Court up-till filing of the restoration application in the year 2011, for about more than 35 years no steps were taken by the plaintiffs in the suit and, therefore, suit of the year 1975 remained idly pending earlier in the Patna High Court and then in Jharkhand High Court. On 26.11.2008, plaintiff no.1 died but no steps were taken for substitution of legal representative of plaintiff no.1 either by the legal representatives of plaintiff no.1 or by remaining plaintiffs. None of the legal representatives of the plaintiff no.1 was a party in the suit either as plaintiff or the defendant. 5. After dismissal of the suit, application for restoration of Title Suit No. 01 of 1975 (P) was filed before learned Single Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 13.01.2012. Therefore, this L.P.A. has been preferred by the plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 01 of 1975(P). 6. 5. After dismissal of the suit, application for restoration of Title Suit No. 01 of 1975 (P) was filed before learned Single Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 13.01.2012. Therefore, this L.P.A. has been preferred by the plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 01 of 1975(P). 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the plaintiffs already filed suit in the Court of Munsif, Hazaribagh and proceeding of that suit has already been stayed in view of the pendency of the Company petition. According to learned counsel for the appellants, in view of Section 446 (2) of Companies Act, 1956, the appellants filed another suit in the High Court which was tagged along with the Company petition no. 01 of 1958 (P). According to learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants took steps in the suit which was pending in the Patna High Court before transfer to Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court. 7. Admittedly, since last more than 25 years, no step were taken in the suit by either of the parties and one of the plaintiffs i.e., plaintiff no.1 died on 26.11.2008 and his legal representatives were not substituted on record and the suit abated because of the reason of death of the plaintiff no.1, who was co-plaintiff along with other plaintiffs having the common cause of action and common right with other plaintiffs. Admittedly, the restoration application was filed in the suit but no application for setting aside of abatement was filed which took place automatically on 26.11.2008. 8. In view of the above reasons and otherwise also, the proceedings of the subsequently filed suit in the High Court was liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure as plaintiffs themselves filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, Hazaribagh and that suit was filed earlier in time and proceedings of that suit has been stayed. Therefore, for the same relief, arising out of same cause of action, there were two suits pending and this fact comes out from the stand of the appellants-plaintiffs themselves. Therefore, in either case, there was no reason for restoration of Title suit No. 01 of 1975 (P) in view of the earlier suit filed and due to abatement of suit of 01 of 1975(P). 9. According to learned counsel for the appellants, Company petition is still pending. 10. Therefore, in either case, there was no reason for restoration of Title suit No. 01 of 1975 (P) in view of the earlier suit filed and due to abatement of suit of 01 of 1975(P). 9. According to learned counsel for the appellants, Company petition is still pending. 10. If it is so, then the plaintiffs may be free to approach the Official Liquidator in accordance with law, if law permits and may seek relief in the Company petition itself. 11. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this L.P.A. which is accordingly dismissed.