ORDER 1. Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 10.11.2011 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Seonda, District Datia, in Civil Suit No.24-A/2011, whereby an application moved by the present petitioners/defendants under section 10 CPC for staying the proceedings of the suit has been rejected. 2. It is an admitted fact that earlier a suit was filed bearing No.239-A/2005 in respect of agricultural land situated at Village Tighra, Tahsil Sevda, District Datia and said suit was decreed. Thereafter, first appeal against such judgment and decree was dismissed and Second Appeal No.120/2007 was admitted and is pending before this High Court. In the present case, another suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 in respect of the land situated at village Ikona in which issues were examined and thereafter, suit was decided, but it was remanded back by the Court of Additional District judge, Seonda, District Datia, in Civil Appeal No.20-A/2006 only for the purpose of deciding an application under Oder 32 rule 12 CPC. In view of such limited remand, it is the contention of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 that such an application under section 10 CPC has been rightly dismissed as it was filed by the defendants to delay the proceedings in the civil suit. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that at earlier point of time no such application under section 10 CPC was filed by the defendants for staying the proceedings and in any case the essential ingredients of section 10 CPC are not fulfilled inasmuch as two suits are different and present suit does not contain matter in issue which is directly and substantially was an issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand has assailed the aforesaid order and has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Aspi Jal and another v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor, as reported in 2013(3) MPLJ 585, wherein it has been held that the scope and object of section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code is to prevent the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of same cause, same subject matter and same relief. Reliance has been placed on paras 10 and 11 of the said judgment and it is submitted that trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application under section 10 CPC. Similarly, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Poonamchand v. Murti Madanmohanji and others, as reported in 2007(3) MPLJ 340 , wherein it has been held that there needs to be common identity about the subject matter, parties to the litigation and jurisdiction. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara, as reported in 2004 AIR SCW 6900, wherein in para 8 it has been held that fundamental test for applicability of section 10 is whether decision in previous suit operates as res judicata in subsequent suit. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff has also placed reliance on this very judgment and submits that the object underlying section 10 is to prevent the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. He submits that in the present case, pendency of second appeal cannot be said to be within the domain of the Court of concurrent jurisdiction. Similarly, the subject matter of the present suit is different from the subject matter of the previous suit. Thirdly, since the remand was limited, therefore, such objection cannot be raised by the defendants. It is apparent that since the subject matter in both the proceedings is not identical, therefore, it cannot be said that both the suits have a common issue which is directly and substantially an issue in both the suits. 5. Another test as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (supra), is whether the final decision in the previous suit would operate as. In the present case, since the matter is different, two lands involved are different, therefore, it is apparent that decision in the second appeal will not operate as res judicata in the present suit, and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application under section 10 CPC. Petitioners to bear the cost of litigation which is quantified at Rs.2,500/-.