JUDGMENT Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Petitioner Krishna Bihari Mishra alongwith Indra Narain Mishra has filed suit under Section 229-B U.P. Z.A and LR Act, 1950 (herein after referred to as the Act) in the revenue Court on 20.9.2005 for a declaration that they be declared co-owners in co-possession of the land of gata No. 174 area 0.149 hectare and 637 area 0.394 hectare situate in Chandupur, Abrayan Pargana and Tehsil-Chail, District-Kaushambi. 2. The aforesaid suit is directed against Rajendra Prasad Mishra and Dharam Narain Mishra apart from the gaon sabha concern and the State of U.P. and is pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chail, District-Kaushambi. 3. One of the defendants to the suit Rajendra Prasad Mishra later instituted Original Suit No. 279 of 2006 against the petitioner and one another for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the above land restraining the petitioner and one another from interfering in his possession, use and cultivation of the said land. 4. The aforesaid suit is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kaushambi. 5. This is admitted as is also clear from the plaint of the above two suits that the contesting parties in both the suits are petitioner Krishna Behiari Mishra and respondent No. 2 Rajendra Prasad Mishra and that both the suits are in respect of the same property. One suit is pending in the revenue Court and the other in the Civil Court. 6. The petitioner in the subsequent suit which has been instituted by respondent No. 2 Rajendra Prasad Mishra in the Civil Court for a decree of permanent injunction raised an objection on which an issue was framed as to whether the proceedings of the suit are liable to be stayed under Section 10 CPC on the ground that the issue therein is also directly and substantially an issue in the previously instituted suit. The issue was decided by the Court of first instance vide order dated 8.1.2001 in favour of the petitioner but on the revision preferred by respondent No. 2, the order has been set aside permitting the trial Court to proceed with the suit on merits. 7. The revisional order dated 9.11.2012 refusing to stay the proceedings of the civil suit in exercise of powers under Section 10 CPC has been impugned in the present writ petition. 8. 7. The revisional order dated 9.11.2012 refusing to stay the proceedings of the civil suit in exercise of powers under Section 10 CPC has been impugned in the present writ petition. 8. Sri B. Malik and Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the parties were heard by me with the clear understanding that the petition would be finally decided at the stage of admission on the basis of the documents forming part of the petition as no further documents were considered necessary from either of the sides for its disposal. 9. The submission of Sri B. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provision of Section 10 CPC is mandatory in nature and when the two suits are between the same parties in respect of the same property by applying the test of res judicata, the proceedings of the injunction suit were liable to be stayed and therefore the revisoinal Court has erred in exercise of its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of stay passed by the trial Court. 10. Sri Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 in reply has submitted that the suit for declaration filed by the petitioner under Section 229 of the Act is not maintainable as the rights of the parties over the said land had already been settled during the consolidation proceedings and that Section 10 CPC is applicable only where the two suits are pending in the Civil Court. 11. In this petition, the Court has only to see whether the proceedings of the subsequently instituted civil suit are liable to be stayed by virtue of Section 10 CPC and the question of the maintainability of the suit which has been filed under Section 229 -B of the Act is totally alien to the aforesaid issue and need not be gone into. 12. The principle on which the above rule is based is akin to principle of res judicata and is called res-sub-judice. It applies to the trial of the suit and not to its institution. 12. The principle on which the above rule is based is akin to principle of res judicata and is called res-sub-judice. It applies to the trial of the suit and not to its institution. Section 10 CPC is reproduced herein below : 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 the same or any other Court in India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.” The primary object of Section 10 CPC is to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously proceeding and adjudicating parallel suits for the same cause of action relating to same subject-matter and for the same relief so as to avoid conflicting decisions. The object is based upon the principles of equity and public policy so as to confine the parties to one suit instead of entering into multifarious proceedings before different Courts in respect of same cause of action. 13. The provision of Section 10 CPC though mandatory in nature its applicability so as to stay the proceedings of the subsequently instituted suit depends upon test as to whether the findings in the earlier suit would operate res judicata in the subsequent suit and the fulfilment of the certain conditions and, if any one of the conditions is lacking, it will not apply. The conditions are : (i) There has to be two suits, one previously instituted and the other subsequently instituted; (ii) The matter in issue in the subsequent suit must be directly and substantially the same as in the previous suit; (iii) Both the suits ought to be between the same parties; (iv) The previously instituted suit should be pending in the same Court or any other Court in India; (v) The Court in which the earlier suit is pending must have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit; and (vi) Parties to both the suits must be litigating under the same title. 14. 14. Out of the several conditions enumerated above, the cardinal one relevant herein for the application of Section 10 CPC is that the previously instituted suit should be pending in the same Court or any other Court in India. 15. The word ‘suit’ and the ‘Court’ appearing in Section 10 CPC are the key words for applying the principle of res-subjudice. 16. In context with Code of Civil Procedure, the word suit used in Section 10 CPC is to be read with Section 9 CPC which points out that it refers to the suits of a civil nature only. Order IV Rule 1 CPC provides that a suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the Court and the plaint shall comply with the Rules of Order VI and VII as far as applicable. Therefore, the presentation of the plaint in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the CPC alone would amount to institution of the suit. Therefore, the word suit used in Section 10 CPC ordinarily refers to a civil suit instituted by presenting a plaint. 17. The above view finds support from the decision of Madras High Court in the case of S.D. Dhandapani v. Branch Manager India Overseas Bank, AIR 2002 Mad 442 . 18. The word ‘Court’ has not been defined in CPC but again by necessary implications it refers only to the Civil Court anywhere in India. The Civil Courts have been classified under Section 3 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 into four classes namely the Court of the District Judge, Court of the Additional District Judge, Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division). 19. The ‘revenue Court’ according to the Section 4(8) of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901 means all or any of the authorities such as Board of Revenue and its Member, Commissioners, Additional Commissioners, Collectors, Additional Collectors, Assistant Collectors, Settlement Officers, Assistant Settlement Officers, Record Officers, Assistant Record Officers and Tehsildar. 20. The Civil Court of original jurisdiction competent to try suits of a civil nature stand excluded from the definition of Revenue Court as per Section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 21. 20. The Civil Court of original jurisdiction competent to try suits of a civil nature stand excluded from the definition of Revenue Court as per Section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 21. The”suit” and the “Court” referred to in Section 10 CPC and required to be pending in the same Court or any other Court in India means the suit of a civil nature pending before the same forum viz. the Civil Court only. Section 10 CPC would not apply where the suits are pending in different forums other than the Civil Court or where one of the suit is pending before a different forum may be a Court otherwise or having the trappings of the Court eg. proceedings pending in different forums such as District Consumer Redressal Forum, Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal would not affect the proceedings of the Civil Court. 22. In view of the above, the word ‘Court’ referred to in Section 10 CPC is referable only to a Civil Court and to a suit instituted in the Civil Court and it cannot be applied to any other proceedings may be in the nature of a suit instituted before any authority having the trappings of the Court. 23. In Vee Cee Yes Granites v. Central Bank of India Chennai, (2000) 2 MLJ 392 (Mad), it was held that Section 10 CPC has no application in respect of the proceedings instituted before the Debt Recovery Tribunal which is created under a special Act ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as tribunal cannot be considered to be a Civil Court. 24. In a case reported in 1997 CCJ 462 the Madhya Pradesh High Court took the view that where the complaint is filed in consumer forum and then a suit is filed in a Civil Court though in respect of the same subject-matter and between the same parties, the proceedings of the suit are not liable to be stayed as the compliant before the consumer forum is different and would not fall within the ambit of “previously instituted suit”. 25. A decision to the similar effect was taken again by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case in Bherulal Bhatt v. Kamal Singh, (2001) 1 Ren CJ 488 and it was held that the proceedings before the Rent Control Authority is not a suit for the purposes of Section 10 CPC. 26. 25. A decision to the similar effect was taken again by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case in Bherulal Bhatt v. Kamal Singh, (2001) 1 Ren CJ 488 and it was held that the proceedings before the Rent Control Authority is not a suit for the purposes of Section 10 CPC. 26. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Dr. N.P. Tripathi v. Smt. Dayamanti Devi and another, AIR 1988 Pat 123 , held that a suit for eviction of tenant under rent control statute cannot be stayed under Section 10 CPC on the ground that the tenant had earlier filed a suit for specific performance against the land lord on the basis of an agreement to sell. 27. A learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Mahabir Singh and others v. District Judge, Fatehpur, 1998 (89) RD 540 , was dealing with a similar preposition where the proceedings were pending under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act in the revenue Court and a suit for cancellation of sale-deed was filed in the Civil Court. It was held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief with regard to declaration of rights of the parties in the land and the revenue Court having no right to cancel the sale-deed, the provisions of Section 10 CPC would not be applicable. 28. Even proceedings before the Civil Court which are in the nature of summary trial have also not been held to be affected by Section 10 CPC vide Indian Bank v. Maharastra State Co-operative Federation Limited, AIR 1998 SC 1952 . 29. The issue appears to be squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. C. Permeshwara, AIR 2005 SC 242 . In the said case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court were considering applicability of bar of Section 10 CPC and it was observed as under : “ 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.” 30. The Court further held that the proceedings before the labour Court cannot be equated with the proceedings before the Civil Court. The Court further held that the proceedings before the labour Court cannot be equated with the proceedings before the Civil Court. They are not the Court of concurrent jurisdiction and Section 10 CPC is not applicable in such circumstances. 31. The legal position which emerges from the aforesaid decision is that the word ‘suit’ or ‘Court’ referred in Section 10 CPC is in context to a suit instituted in the Civil Court only in accordance with Section 9 CPC and any proceedings or suit pending in a different forum, other than, the Civil Court including a revenue Court under the provisions of any other law would not attract the bar of Section 10 CPC. In short, Section 10 CPC gets attracted only where the two suits are of civil nature and are before the same Civil Court or any Civil Court in India provided other conditions are also satisfied. 32. In the instance case also the proceedings are before the two different forums ie., the revenue Court and the Civil Court. The revenue Court is seized with the declaration of the rights/status of the parties in respect of the land in dispute whereas the Civil Court is only concern as to whether the plaintiff of the suit is entitle to injunction which is generally required to be decided on the basis of the possession of the parties irrespective of their title or status over the land in dispute. 33. The authorities which have been cited from the side of the petitioner are in context of principle of res judicata which is one of the test for applying Section 10 CPC provided the other conditions laid down therein are satisfied. The aforesaid rulings render no assistance as one of the basic condition regarding pendency of previously instituted suit in the same Court or any other Court in India itself remains unsatisfied, in the light of the above decisions. 34. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that as the previously instituted suit between the parties is pending in the revenue Court, the proceedings of a subsequent suit instituted in the Civil Court are not liable to be stayed by invoking the provisions of Section 10 CPC. 35. The writ petition as such has no force and is dismissed. ——————