JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral) The present application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 ( in short ‘CPC’) has been moved by contesting defendants No. 1 and 2 with a prayer for stay of the main suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff against them and other defendants in which defendant No. 5 has been joined as proforma defendant, on the ground that a previously instituted suit for injunction being Civil Suit No. 190/2010, titled Rishi Rajan Gupta versus Fozal Power Pvt. Ltd. & others filed by the plaintiff against the defendants in respect of the same subject matter, is pending trial in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kullu, H.P., and as such, the present suit, which has been filed subsequently, is liable to be stayed under Section 10 CPC. 2. Shorn of details, facts of the case are that according to the plaintiff the machinery fully detailed and described in para-1 of the plaint has been purchased by him from proforma defendant No. 5 M/S Negi Builders (P) Ltd. It is further averred that defendant No. 5 was a sub­contractor under defendant No. 1, M/S Fozal Power Pvt. Ltd., who had deployed the said machinery in the ongoing execution of the work of the project allotted in favour of defendant No.1. After purchase of the machinery by the plaintiff, the same is still with contesting defendants No. 1 to 4. 3. Against the foregoing background, the suit for injunction is stated to have been filed by the plaintiff in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kullu, H.P. seeking to restrain defendant No. 1 not to use the said machinery. 4. The present suit for recovery of ! 19,17,821/- has been filed by the plaintiff against contesting defendants No. 1 to 4 on account of use of the aforesaid machinery. 5. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the contesting defendants No. 1 and 2 that as the subject matter of both the suits is the same and “the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit between the same parties”, the present suit is liable to be stayed. 5. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the contesting defendants No. 1 and 2 that as the subject matter of both the suits is the same and “the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit between the same parties”, the present suit is liable to be stayed. In this regard, reliance has been placed on two judgments of this Court, reported as: (1) Himalaya Cotton Ginning & Oil Industries versus UCO Bank & another, 1998(1) CLJ (H.P)343 and (2) Mansa Devi and others versus Rewat Ram and others,2002(2) Shim. L.C. 265. 6.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the prayer of contesting defendants No. 1 and 2 for stay of the present suit for recovery is not legally tenable, as the suit which is valued at ! 19,17,821/-, is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kullu, H.P., as no subordinate Court is invested with pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs. 15,00,000/- and above, which vests with the High Court. The plaintiff relies on two judgments of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court reported as: (1) Mirta Lina Pr. Ltd. v. The Finlay Mills Ltd. and another, AIR 1982 Calcutta 41 and (2) Adhish Chandra Sinha v. Hindusthan Gas & Industries Ltd. and another, AIR 1985 Calcutta 154. 7.In order to resolve the controversy between the parties, it shall be appropriate to notice the provision of Section 10 of CPC, which is 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 (Supreme Court). Explanation.- The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in (India) from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.” 8. Explanation.- The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in (India) from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.” 8. Indisputably, the subject matter of both the suits i.e. the machinery as aforesaid, filed by the plaintiff in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kullu, H.P. and this Court is the same. However, the fact remains that the suit before the Court at Kullu is for grant of a decree for injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from using the said machinery, which is stated to be in their possession and being put to use by them. The case before this Court is for recovery of user charges of the said machinery by the defendants. As already noticed, the suit for recovery filed by plaintiff in this Court is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court at Kullu. It being so, the present case could not have been filed in that Court. Thus, the Court at Kullu is not “having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed” in the present suit. 9. In view of the above, to my mind, Section 10 CPC is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the prayer of contesting defendants No. 1 and 2 for stay of the present suit is not legally tenable and is accordingly disallowed. I am not inclined to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 151 CPC to stay the present suit as canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for contesting defendants No. 1 and 2 by placing reliance upon Himalaya Cotton Ginning & Oil Industries versus UCO Bank & another, Supra. 10. Be it stated that in case the aforesaid civil suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff pending trial in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kullu, H.P. is decided prior in point of time vis-à-vis this case, decision of that case shall have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of this case. 11.The application stands disposed of.