JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared for the respondent despite service of notice. 2. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 18-01-2017 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge, Karimganj in Misc. Case No. 164/2016 arising out of Title Suit No. 07/2016 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the CPC has been put under challenge. 3. The petitioner is the defendant No. 1 in Title Suit No. 07/2016 instituted by the respondents as plaintiffs. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the respondents as plaintiffs had earlier instituted Title Suit No. 09/2009 before the court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj seeking a decree for declaration of their right, title and interest over the second schedule land; for recovery of possession and for other consequential relief(s). The aforesaid suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court on 21-01-2015, where-after, the present petitioner had preferred a title appeal. The title appeal having been dismissed by the first appellate court, the petitioner has preferred a second appeal against the concurrent judgment and decree arising out of Title Suit No. 09/2009 which is pending disposal before this Court. Title Suit No. 07/2017 was instituted by the respondents as plaintiffs on 26-02-2016 whereby, the present petitioner No. 1 has been impleaded as defendant No. 1. Besides the petitioner, there are 04 other defendants in Title Suit No. 07/2016. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 10 CPC praying for stay of further proceeding in Title Suit No. 07/2016, which was rejected by the learned Trial Court by the impugned order dated 18-01-2017. Hence, this petition. 4. By contending that an appeal is a continuation of the suit, Mr. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is a strong possibility that the second appeal preferred by the petitioner against the decree passed in Title Suit No. 09/2009, as affirmed by the lower appellate court, would be set aside in which eventuality, Title Suit No. 07/2016 would not be maintainable. Under the circumstances, Mr. Dhar submits that the learned Trial Court had committed manifest error in interpreting Section 10 of the CPC and holding that the subject matter of both the suits are not same and/ or identical. 5. In support of his above argument Mr. Under the circumstances, Mr. Dhar submits that the learned Trial Court had committed manifest error in interpreting Section 10 of the CPC and holding that the subject matter of both the suits are not same and/ or identical. 5. In support of his above argument Mr. Dhar has placed reliance on the following decisions: (a) National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences Vs. C. Parameshwara; AIR 2005 SC 242 . (b) Jugometal Trg Republike Vs. Rungta & Sons (Pvt.) Ltd.; AIR 1966 CALCUTTA 382. (c) Smt. Ambika Sahu Vs. Smt. Sumitra Sahu; AIR 1990 ORISSA 127 (d) Arun General Industries Ltd. Vs. Rishabh Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.; AIR 1972 CALCUTTA 128 (e) M/s Fulchand Motilal & Anr. Vs. M/s Manhar Lall Jetha Lall Meht; AIR 1973 PATNA 196 (f) Mahangu Prasad Sah & Anr. Vs. Prayag Sah & Ors.; AIR 1975 GAUHATI 40. 6. As noticed above the former suit, i.e. Title Suit No. 09/2009 was instituted by the respondents, i.e. the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 07/2016, against the present petitioner and four others, seeking a decree for declaration and recovery of possession over the second schedule land. The suit was decreed by the learned court below on 21-01-2015. A careful reading of the plaint filed in both the suits goes to show that the defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in Title Suit No. 09/2009 had been left out from array of parties in the subsequent suit, i.e. Title Suit No. 07/2016 and in their place, four other defendants had been added as parties. Moreover, in Title Suit No. 07/2016, the plaintiffs have claimed right, title and interest over a different plot of land which, however, includes the land mentioned in second schedule of the plaint filed in Title Suit No. 09/2009. 7. Referring to the schedule of the plaint filed in Title Suit No. 07/2016, Mr. Dhar has argued that the subsequent suit is nothing but a replica of the former suit, seeking similar reliefs, with the only difference that the plaintiffs are claiming a larger plot of land. Since the prayer of the petitioner is to stay further proceeding in Title Suit No. 07/2016 by invoking powers under Section 10 CPC, it would be necessary to refer to the said provision: "10. Since the prayer of the petitioner is to stay further proceeding in Title Suit No. 07/2016 by invoking powers under Section 10 CPC, it would be necessary to refer to the said provision: "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.” 8. From a plain reading of the provision, it would be apparent on the face of the record that Section 10 CPC would be applicable when both the suits are pending adjudication in the same or any other court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed and the matter in issue in the subsequent suit is also directly or substantially in issue in the previous suit by and between the same parties or under whom they claim title. 9. While interpreting Section 10 of the CPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observation in the case of National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences(Supra), which are extracted herein-below: “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 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. 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.” 10. From a plain reading of Section 10 in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences (Supra), it would be clear that Section 10 will not have any application where the material issues in the subsequent suit are not directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they claim to be litigating. Moreover, both the suits must be pending trial before the competent court of jurisdiction. 11. In the present case, from the materials available on record, it is doubtful as to whether the issues involved in both the suits are directly or substantially the same. The parties are admittedly not the same and the date of accrual of the cause of action also appears to be different. Leaving aside the said aspect of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the former suit having been decreed, section 10 CPC would have no application in this case. 12. The parties are admittedly not the same and the date of accrual of the cause of action also appears to be different. Leaving aside the said aspect of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the former suit having been decreed, section 10 CPC would have no application in this case. 12. It may be the case that some of the issues or all the issues arising in the subsequent suit are identical to those decided in the former suit but once the issues arising in the former suit have been adjudicated by the competent court and the suit has been finally disposed of on merit, the matter would fall within the ambit of section 11 of the CPC and not section 10 of the CPC. In other words, once the former suit is disposed of on merit section 10 would cease to have any application in the matter and in such circumstances, the applicant can at best raise the plea of res-judicata in the subsequent suit. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer made by the petitioner under Section 10 CPC. 13. Insofar as the decisions relied upon by Mr. Dhar is concerned, none of those decisions are on the point as to whether a suit finally decided by a competent court of law can be treated to be a pending suit for the purpose of invoking powers under Section 10 CPC. Be that as it may, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences(Supra), the aforesaid question would no longer survive for adjudication in the present case. As noticed above, the section 10 to have any application, both the suits must be at the stage of trial before the competent court. Therefore, pendency of an appeal arising out of a decree passed in the former suit cannot be a ground to apply Section 10 CPC for stay of subsequent suit. As such, the decisions cited by Mr. Dhar would not be of any assistance to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. For the reasons stated above, this revision petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.