JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. – Heard Shri Amit Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Adnan Ahmad, who has put in appearance by filing his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 2. The Vakalatnama is taken on record. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order dated 26.02.2016, passed by the learned District Judge, Lucknow, whereby the revision petition preferred by the respondent no.2 against the order dated 09.11.2015 has been allowed and the order dated 09.11.2015 has been set aside with a further direction to the learned trial court to decide the application moved under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for deferring the proceedings of subsequent Suit No. 484/2015 afresh. 3. The petitioner and respondent no.2 are husband and wife. On account of certain differences, the petitioner filed Suit No. 821/2013 with a relief of permanent injunction against defendant-respondent no. 2 restraining her from alienating all the propertiesgricultural properties and selling the same in favour of any other person. The suit property in the plaint pertaining to Suit No. 821/2013 has been described in para 3 and 4 thereof. 4. The prayer clause in the plaint of Suit No. 821 of 2013 is quoted below: - ";g fd oknh fuEu vuqrks"k dh ;kpuk djrk gS%& d & ;g fd oknh dk okn fMxzh cgd oknh fo: ) izfrokfnuh ds bl vk'k; ds ikfjr fd;k tkos fd nkSjku eqdnek oknh }kjk dz; dh x;h leLr lEifRr;ksa@d`f"k ;ksX; Hkwfe;ksa dks fdlh vU; O;fDr;ksa ds i{k esa izfrokfnuh vUrj.k u djsaA [k & oknh dks izfrokfnuh ls leLr okn [kpkZ fnyk;k tk;sA x & vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k tks U;k;fgr esa vko';d gks oknh dks izfrokfnuh ls fnyk;s tkus ds vkns'k ikfjr djus dh d`ik djsa pkgs ml ij vfrfjDr U;k; 'kqYd oknh dks D;ksa u vnk djuk iM+sA" 5. The properties mentioned in the plaint of the said Suit No. 821/2013 are; (i) a house built on a plot ad-measuring 4000/- sq. ft. situate in Arjunganj, Shahkhera, Pargana and Tehsil-Sadar, District-Lucknow; (ii) Khasra Plot No. 531 situate in village-Paraspur, Thattha, Pargana-Nigoha, Tehsil-Mohanlalganj, district-Lucknow; (iii) Plot No. 324v ; (iv) Plot No. 324c situate in the same village in district-Lucknow; (v) Plot No. 12 and (vi) Plot No. 1576 situate in village-Khanpur, Pargana-Morawa, Tehsil-Purwa, district Unnao. 6. Paragraphs no. ft. situate in Arjunganj, Shahkhera, Pargana and Tehsil-Sadar, District-Lucknow; (ii) Khasra Plot No. 531 situate in village-Paraspur, Thattha, Pargana-Nigoha, Tehsil-Mohanlalganj, district-Lucknow; (iii) Plot No. 324v ; (iv) Plot No. 324c situate in the same village in district-Lucknow; (v) Plot No. 12 and (vi) Plot No. 1576 situate in village-Khanpur, Pargana-Morawa, Tehsil-Purwa, district Unnao. 6. Paragraphs no. 3 and 4 of the plaint of Regular Suit No. 821/2013 are quoted below: "3- ;g fd oknh us o"kZ 1988 (mUuhl lkS vB~Bklh) esa vtqZuxat] 'kkg [ksM+k] ijxuk rglhy&lnj] ftyk& y[kum esa 4000 (pkj gtkj)oxZ QqV tehu izfrokfnuh iRuh ds uke ls dz;k fd;k rFkk 1200 (ckjg lkS) oxZ QqV ij viuk edku fufeZr djk;kA 4- ;g fd oknh us vius Lo;a /ku ls viuh iRuh ds gh uke ls xzke ijliqj BVBk] ijxuk&fuxksgk] rg'khy &eksguykyxat] ftyk&y[kum esa [kljk la0 531 ikWap lkS bDdrhl jdok 0-5660 ('kwU; n'keyo ikWap gtkj N% lkS lkB) gs0 o [kljk la0 324&v rhu lkS pkSchl&v jdok 0-4000 ('kwU; n'keyo 'kwU; pkj lkS) gs0 o [kljk la0 324&c rhu lkS pkSchl&c jdok 0-2150 'kwU; n'keyo nks gtkj ,d lkS iPpkl gs0 rFkk xzke [kkuiqj ijxuk rglhy iqjok ftyk mUuko esa [kljk la0 12 (ckjg) jdok 164-000 ,d lkS pkSalB gs0 o [kljk la0 1576 (,d gtkj ikWap lkS fNgRrj) jdok 0-7040 'kwU; n'keyo lkr gtkj pkyhl gs0 dz; fd;kA 7. Subsequently the petitioner filed a suit for his declaration which has been registered as Regular Suit No. 484/2015 with the prayer that a decree of declaration be passed declaring the petitioner to be the owner of the suit property described in paragraph 4 of the plaint. The prayer clause of the subsequent Suit No. 484/2015 is quoted below: - d & ;g fd izkFkhZ@oknh ds gd esa izfrokfnuh ds fo: ) fMdzh ikfjr dj izkFkh@oknh dks okn i= ds iLrj&4 esa of.kr iz'uxr Hkwfe dk Lokeh ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr djus dh d`I;k djsaA [k & ;g fd okn dk gtkZ [kpkZ izfrokfnuh ls fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr djus dh d`ik djsaA x & ;g fd vU; vuqrks"k tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; nkos dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mfpr le>s izkFkhZ@oknh dks fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr djus dh d`ik djsaA 8. The suit property of the subsequent Suit No. 484/2015 has been described in para 4 of the plaint, according to which, the suit property is plot ad-measuring 4000/- sq ft. The suit property of the subsequent Suit No. 484/2015 has been described in para 4 of the plaint, according to which, the suit property is plot ad-measuring 4000/- sq ft. situated in village Arjunganj Shahkhera, Mazra Sarawa, Pargana and Tehsil-Sadar, district-Lucknow. Para 4 of the said plaint is also quoted below: - "4- ;g fd izkFkhZ@oknh us vius lEiw.kZ ifjokj ds jgus ds fy, edku la0 125] vtqZuxat 'kkg[ksM+k] etjk ljlok] ijxuk o rglhy lnj o ftyk&y[kum esa ,d IykV rknknh 4000 pkj gtkj oxZ fQV dz; fd;k o fodz; ewY;k izkFkhZ@oknh us Lo;a vnk djds cSukek izfrokfnuh pUnzkuh ds uke djk fn;k o mijksDr IykV ij gh dqN va'k esa fuekZ.k djk fy;k o dqN va'k okyh iM+k gqvk gS mDr izkFkhZ@oknh }kjk djk;s x;s fufeZr deku esa izkFkhZ@oknh ds cPps izkFkhZ@oknh Lo;a o izfrokfnuh vkt Hkh fuokl dj jgs gSA" 9. Thus, the property of subsequent Suit No. 484/2015 i.e. the plot situated in District-Lucknow and the house standing thereon is also mentioned in the plaint of the earlier suit No. 821/2013. The defendant respondent no.2 moved an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying therein that since the property in dispute which is the subject matter of the subsequent Suit No. 484/2015 is the same as that of the earlier suit i.e. Suit No. 821/2013, as such the proceedings of the subsequent suit be deferred on the ground that the subsequent suit cannot proceed as the matter in issue in subsequent suit is directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit. 10. Learned trial court, however, rejected the application moved by the defendant-respondent no.2 by means of the judgment and order dated 09.11.2015 observing therein that the property in dispute in two suits are different. For arriving at this conclusion, it has been observed by the learned trial court that in the earlier Suit No. 821/2013 the subject matter is the entire agricultural land in respect of which a relief for permanent injunction has been sought whereas in the subsequent Suit No. 484/2015 the subject matter is the residential plot in respect of which a decree for declaration has been sought. Finding the difference between the subject matter of two suits, the application was rejected by the learned trial court. 11. On a revision petition preferred by the defendant-respondent no. Finding the difference between the subject matter of two suits, the application was rejected by the learned trial court. 11. On a revision petition preferred by the defendant-respondent no. 2, it has been opined by the learned District Judge in his order dated 26.02.2016 in Original Suit No. 484 of 2015 that the relief of declaration in respect of plot measuring 4000/- sq. ft. situate at Arjunganj Shahkhera, Pargana and Tehsil-Sadar, District-Lucknow has been sought and further that details of this plot also find mentioned in the plaint of Original Suit No.821/2013. Learned District Judge has also opined that the issue in both the suits which is directly and substantially involved is as to whether the plaintiff-petitioner had purchased or acquired the property out of his own income in the name of his wife. Accordingly, the revision petition has been allowed by the learned District Judge, however, with a direction to the learned trial court to decide the application moved under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned orders and other material available on record, specially the plaints in both the suits i.e. the earlier Suit No. 821/2013 and the subsequent Suit No. 484/2015, it is difficult to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who vehemently made his submission to impeach the order dated 26.02.2016, passed by the District Judge. His submission is that the relief sought in the earlier suit is confined to agricultural land alone for the reason that in the body of the plaint except for making a mention of the residential plot ad-measuring 4000/- sq.ft. situate at Arjunganj Shahkhera, Pargana and Tehsil-Sadar, District-Lucknow, nothing more in respect of the said residential plot has been said and the cause of action disclosed in the said plaint is also confined to agricultural plot alone. 13. I am unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. From a bare perusal of the relief clause in the earlier Suit No. 821/2013 it is clear that relief for permanent injunction has been sought not only in respect of agricultural property but also in respect of all the properties. The relief clause clearly makes a prayer in respect of all the propertiesgricultural properties purchased by the petitioner-plaintiff. From a bare perusal of the relief clause in the earlier Suit No. 821/2013 it is clear that relief for permanent injunction has been sought not only in respect of agricultural property but also in respect of all the properties. The relief clause clearly makes a prayer in respect of all the propertiesgricultural properties purchased by the petitioner-plaintiff. The averments have been made in both the plaints in respect of plot ad-measuring 4000/-sq. ft. on which a house has been constructed and which is situated in Arjunganj, Shahkhera, Pargana and Tehsil-Sadar, District-Lucknow. The said plot was also purchased by the petitioner out of his own income in the name of his wife. In the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, the prayers made in both the suits as well as the property mentioned in both the plaints have been extracted. 14. Accordingly, for the discussions made above, I do not find it a case fit for any interference in the order passed by the learned revisional court on 26.02.2016. 15. However, at this juncture, I may only indicate that once the District Judge had recorded a finding that the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in both the suits hence, remanding the matter to the learned trial court for decision on the application moved by the defendant-respondent no.2 afresh would be a futile exercise. 16. In this view of the matter, I hereby modify the order dated 26.02.2016, passed by the learned District Judge and set aside that portion of the order, whereby learned trial court has been directed to decide the application moved under Section 10 of the CPC afresh. 17. It is further directed that the proceedings of subsequent Regular Suit No. 484/2015 shall be deferred till the conclusion of the proceedings of earlier suit, namely, Regular Suit No. 821/2013. 18. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated before the Court that despite pendency of the application for grant of interim injunction under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff in Regular Suit No. 821/2013, wherein the defendant has also put in her appearance, the said application for grant of interim injunction has not been decided. 19. 19. In this view, a direction needs to be issued which is hereby issued to the learned trial court to consider the application for grant of interim injunction on the application preferred for the said purpose by the plaintiff-petitioner expeditiously, say within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 20. Parties before the learned trial court in Regular Suit No. 821/2013 shall be present on 27.04.2016 irrespective of any other date which might have been fixed by the learned court below. No further notice will be required to be given to either of the parties for appearing before the learned trial court below. 21. The petition is, thus, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 22. There will be no order as to costs. Petition disposed of.