JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J.:- By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/defendants are challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 01.09.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge, Class II, Amarpatan, District Satna in Civil Suit No. 452-A/2006 by which defendants' application under Section 10 CPC has been rejected. 2-3. A civil suit 94-A/1999 in the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Amarpatan was filed by Mst. Dadolwa and Ram Naresh against several defendants including Ramakant who is present plaintiff in the later suit filed by him in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Amarpatan and which has been registered as Civil Suit No. 94-A/99. On bare perusal of the plaint of the earlier suit annexure P/2 this Court finds that in para 5 plaintiff interalia has specifically pleaded that the defendants by keeping the plaintiffs in dark sold 0.40 decimal area of Survey no.506 to 4th defendant Ramakant of that suit vide registered sale deed dated 7.8.1998 for a consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. On bare perusal of the plaint of the earlier suit annexure P/2 this Court finds that in para 5 plaintiff interalia has specifically pleaded that the defendants by keeping the plaintiffs in dark sold 0.40 decimal area of Survey no.506 to 4th defendant Ramakant of that suit vide registered sale deed dated 7.8.1998 for a consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. In the earlier suit the plaintiffs sought following reliefs:- ^^1- ;g fd vkjkth ua- 217 jdck 2-50 fM- dk 1@2 fgLlk tqt jdck 1-25 nf{k.kh fgLlk ua- 213 jdck 0-46 fM- dk 1@2 tqt jdck 23&1@2 nf{k.k rjQ vkjkth ua- 214 jdck 1-76 fM- dk 1@2 88&1@2 fM- mRrj rjQ ua- 215 jdck 0-56 fM- dk 1@2 fgLlk tqt jdck 0-28 fM- iohZ fgLlk ua- jdck 5-04 ,- d 1@2 fgLlk nf{k.k rjQ 2-52 fM- yfyriqj ,oa eqdqUniqj dh vkjkth ua- 506 jdck 0-51 fM- eqrkfcd vuqyXu ^^v] c] l^^ rglhy vejikVu ftyk & lruk e-iz- dh Hkwfe dk foHkktu fd;k tk;A 2- ;g fd nknjlh ds iSjk ua- 1 esa of.kZr vkjkft;krks esa izfroknhx.kksa ls oknhx.kksa dks dCtk n[ky okil fnyk;k tk;A 3- ;g fd nknjlh ds iSjk ua- 1 esa of.kZr Hkwfe dk HkwfeLokeh oknhx.kksa dks ?kksf"kr djrs gq, izfroknh ua- 4 ds 3 W.P. 16927/12 gd esa fd;k x;k o;ukek fnukad 7-8-98 eqo- 32]000@& o;eukek oknhx.kksa ds gd esa csvlj ,oa izHkko'kqU; ?kksf"kr fd;k tk;A 4- ;g fd oknhx.kksa dks izfroknhx.kksa ds e/;orhZ ykHk ds :i esa izR;sd o"kZ dk 15]000@& :- rkjh[k nkok nk;jk ls izkIr djus dCtk rd vkfFkZd {kfr fnyk;h tk;A 5- ;g fd oknhx.kksa dks izfroknhx.kksa ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tk;s fd fookfnr vkjkth esa izfroknhx.k Lo;a ,oa muds lg;ksfx;ksa }kjk oknhx.kksa ds dCts n[ky esa dksbZ gLr{ksi u djsaA 6- ;g fd [kpkZ vnkyr oknhx.kksa dks izfroknhx.kksa ls fnyk;k tk;sA 7- ;g fd nhxj nknjlh tks Hkh U;k;ky; mfpr le>s og Hkh oknhx.kksa dks izfroknhx.kksa ls fnyk;k tk;A** Hence it is luminously clear that several reliefs including the relief to get the sale deed set aside as well as for recovery of the possession of the property including the suit property of the present suit has been sought by the plaintiffs in their suit. 4. 4. On bare perusal of the averments made by the present plaintiff/respondent Ramakant in his plaint (later suit) Annexure P/6, this Court finds that by virtue of the said sale deed executed in the year 1998 for a consideration of Rs.32,000/-, he is seeking decree of injunction in respect to Survey no.506/2, area 0.40 decimal. Hence an application under Section 10 CPC has been filed by the defendants/petitioners to stay the present suit. This application of defendants/petitioners has been rejected by learned trial Court by passing the impugned order. In this manner, this petition has been filed. 5. The contention of Shri P.N. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the defendants/petitioners is that in para 20 of the plaint of the earlier suit, the present petitioners were plaintiffs 1 and 2. In that suit, they had specifically pleaded that by keeping the plaintiffs in dark, defendants 1 to 3 namely Bhura, Vishram and Jeevanlal sold the part of Survey no. 506 to present plaintiff Ramakant (who was defendant no.4 in the earlier suit) although they were not having any possession over it. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit of plaintiffs vide judgment dated 25.7.2005. On bare perusal of para 3 of the impugned judgment (internal page 4 thereof) this Court finds that the case of plaintiffs has been discussed wherein it has been specifically mentioned that defendants 1 to 3 by concealing the reality and secretly sold out 0.40 decimal land of Survey No.506 to present plaintiff Ramakant vide registered sale deed dated 7.8.1998. However, against the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs of the earlier suit filed appeal which has also been dismissed but second appeal is pending before this Court as Second Appeal No.1934/2006 and the same has also been admitted on 11.1.2012. Hence, the present suit cannot proceed because in the earlier suit the suit land of present (later) suit was the part of suit property of that suit. The present suit has been filed for injunction by the respondent no.1. Hence, present suit be stayed under Section 10 CPC. 6. Hence, the present suit cannot proceed because in the earlier suit the suit land of present (later) suit was the part of suit property of that suit. The present suit has been filed for injunction by the respondent no.1. Hence, present suit be stayed under Section 10 CPC. 6. On the other hand Shri Atul Anand Awasthy, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that the suit land of the two suits are quite different and the present suit has been filed for injunction and hence Section 10 CPC has no applicability in the present suit and, therefore, it has been submitted that rightly the application has been rejected. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. 8. On bare perusal of the plaint of the two suits as well as the judgment passed in the earlier suit in which the present defendants/petitioners were some of the plaintiffs, this Court finds that there is specific averment and pleading of plaintiffs that defendants 1 to 3 secretly sold out 0.40 decimal land of Survey no. 506 to 4th defendant Ramakant (who is the present plaintiff) for a consideration of Rs. 32,000/- by executing registered sale deed dated 7.8.1998. The reliefs which the plaintiffs of earlier suit (defendants of the present suit) had prayed I have already quoted hereinabove. 9. True, that suit has been dismissed and the first appeal has also been dismissed but the second appeal of plaintiff has been admitted by this Court and, therefore, when the second appeal is pending it cannot be said that the fate of the earlier suit had attained finality. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff Ramakant who was arrayed as defendant no.4 in the earlier suit. In this suit, the property in question is the part of Survey no.506 although it has been labelled as 506/2, area 0.40 decimal. Since there is specific averment in the plaint of the earlier suit that defendants 1 to 3 of that suit sold the part of the suit land 0.40 decimal of Survey no.506 of this later suit, therefore, according to me the property in question of the present suit is partly identical to that of the property of the earlier suit . According to me, it is not necessary that complete identity of the property of both the suits should be there in order to invoke the provisions of Section 10 CPC. Admittedly, the suit property of the present (later) suit was the subject matter of the earlier suit also which is still pending since the second appeal is pending. 10. The matter in issue in the earlier suit was as to whether the plaintiffs of that suit were the owners of the suit property (including the disputed property of the present suit). Further whether defendants 1 to 3 of the earlier suit rightly sold the disputed property to Ramakant plaintiff of the present (later) suit vide registered sale deed dated 7.8.1998 for Rs. 32,000/-. The said issue is also directly and substantially in issue in the present suit as to whether the said sale deed was rightly executed in favour of the present plaintiff (Ramakant) who was the fourth defendant in the earlier suit. The parties of the present (later) suit were also the parties in the earlier suit. 11. One of the test in order to attract provisions of Section 10 CPC is as to whether the decision of the former suit would be operated as resjudicata in the present suit and, therefore, if the earlier suit is decreed by this Court its decision will operate as resjudicata in the present suit. In this context, I may profitably place reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court AIR 1973 Madhya Pradesh 14, Para 4 A.C. Naha Roy Vs. National Coal Development Corporation Ltd. and others. Hence, according to me, the trial of the present (later) suit cannot proceed because the matter in issue of the present suit was also directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit which was filed by the present defendants/petitioners. 12. I do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents that the present suit is for injunction and, therefore, it cannot be stayed. True, the present suit is for injunction but in the earlier suit the present petitioners who were plaintiffs have sought for cancellation of the sale deed executed by defendants 1 to 3 of that suit in favour of defendant no.4 Ramakant (plaintiff of present suit) and further to deliver possession. 13. True, the present suit is for injunction but in the earlier suit the present petitioners who were plaintiffs have sought for cancellation of the sale deed executed by defendants 1 to 3 of that suit in favour of defendant no.4 Ramakant (plaintiff of present suit) and further to deliver possession. 13. According to me, the learned trial Court has acted illegally with material irregularity by not allowing the application of the defendants/petitioners under Section 10 CPC. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the application under Section 10 CPC filed by defendants/petitioners is allowed. 14. Resultantly, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and. the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to cost.