JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K. Rath, J. - By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 13.2.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Balasore in C.S. No.741 of 1998-I. By the said order, learned trial court rejected the petition filed by the defendants under Section 10 C.P.C. to stay the further proceeding of the suit till disposal of A.H.O. No.62/93. 2. The opposite party along with others laid T.S. No.20/20 of 1973-74 for partition. The same was decreed preliminarily on 22.12.1977. The predecessors of the defendant nos.2 to 10, who were defendants, filed First Appeal No.96 of 1978 before this Court. The same was dismissed on 9.2.1983. Thereafter they have filed A.H.O. No.62 of 1993 challenging inter alia the judgment passed in First Appeal No.96 of 1978. The same is pending. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiff no.1 in T.S. No.20/20 of 1973-74 filed a suit for declaration that the ?Kha? schedule property is the joint property of plaintiffs and defendants and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. The defendants filed an application under Section 10 C.P.C. to stay the further proceeding of the suit till disposal of A.H.O. No.62 of 1993. The same was rejected by the learned trial court on 13.2.2008. 3. Heard Mr. G.D. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Routray, learned counsel for the opposite party. 4. Learned trial court came to hold that the earlier suit was filed for partition whereas in the present suit, the plaintiff has prayed inter alia to declare the right, title and interest and possession over the suit land and for permanent injunction. The reliefs sought for are not one and the same. In that view of the matter, Section 10 C.P.C. has no application. 5. Section 10 C.P.C., which is the hub of the issue, is quoted hereunder. "10. The reliefs sought for are not one and the same. In that view of the matter, Section 10 C.P.C. has no application. 5. Section 10 C.P.C., which is the hub of the issue, is quoted hereunder. "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]." 5. In M/s. Radha Govinda Traders v. M/s.G.R. Oil Mills, 1970 (1) C.W.R. 402, it was held that three requirements must be satisfied before Section 10 C.P.C. can be pressed into service. They are (1) the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same in both the suits; (2) the same parties or parties claiming under the same title are concerned in both the suits; (3) the court in which the previously instituted suit is pending is competent to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit. 6. In National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara, AIR 2005 SC 242 , the apex Court in paragraph 8 of the report held as follows: "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 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 in contra-distinction 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." (emphasis laid) 7. On the anvil of the decisions cited supra, the case of the petitioners may be examined. The learned trial court fell into patent error of law in holding that since the relief claimed in both the suits are different, Section 10 C.P.C. is not attracted. The requirements of Section 10 C.P.C. are that whether the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same in both the suits, between the same parties or parties claiming under the same title are concerned in both the suits and the court in which the previously instituted suit is pending is competent to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit. The cardinal test to attract Section 10 C.P.C. is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 C.P.C. would apply only if there is identity of the matter in issue in both the suits, that the whole subject matter in both the suits is identical. Admittedly the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No.20/20 of 1973-74 is under challenge in A.H.O. No.62 of 1993. In the earlier suit, one of the issues was whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for partition and if so in which property. Though in the second suit, the prayer is made for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property, but the decision in AHO No.62/1993 would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. In the earlier suit, one of the issues was whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for partition and if so in which property. Though in the second suit, the prayer is made for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property, but the decision in AHO No.62/1993 would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. The matter in issue is directly & substantially the same in both the suits in as much as the parties claim under the same title. Further the learned trial court is competent to grant relief in the subsequent suit. 8. In the wake of the said, the order dated 13.2.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Balasore in C.S. No.741 of 1998-I is quashed. The further proceeding of C.S. No.741 of 1998-I on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Balasore shall remain stayed till disposal of the A.H.O. No.62 of 1993 before this Court. The petition is allowed. No costs.