ORDER : 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge, Class-I, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No.8B of 2018, rejecting application filed under Section 10 of the CPC by petitioner/defendant. 2. Shri Ankit Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is a registered Company and manufacturer of drippers, used for drip irrigation. Respondent-1 is a dealer, based at Rajnandgaon, CG, who purchased drippers from petitioner through various consignments. Total sale amount was Rs.10,42, 368/-, out of which respondent-1/dealer paid only Rs.7,45,568/- to petitioner and has not paid Rs.2,96,800/- even after several reminders. This made the petitioner to file a Civil Suit, which is pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, for consideration. Upon receiving notice, respondents-1/plaintiff appeared before the Civil Court at Kashipur and submitted written statement vide Annexure P34. After submission of written statement to suit of the petitioner, respondent-1/plaintiff also filed Civil Suit before the Court at Rajnandgaon seeking relief of damages of Rs.9,60,000/- on 05.03.2018. Cause of action for filing of Civil Suit as appearing from plaint is, consignment of supply of goods by petitioner to respondent-1 in between 10.06.2015 to 20.08.2016 of the value of Rs.10,05,000/-, further pleaded that the goods were of inferior quality and having its total value of Rs.1,60,800/- only, claimed Rs.9,60,000/- towards damages. It is contended that after receiving notice of suit filed by respondent-1 which is subsequent one, petitioner moved an application under Section 10 of the CPC before the Court at Rajnandgaon, for staying the proceeding of the suit, which came to be dismissed by impugned order. He contended that in written statement filed by respondent-1 before the Court at Kashipur in Civil Suit filed by the petitioner, there is specific admission of withholding amount of Rs.2,96,800/- on the ground that in the business transaction, petitioner supplied consignment of goods of inferior quality due to which, respondent-1 suffered loss of Rs.9,60,000/-. He pointed out that pleading made in written statement in earlier suit before Court at Kashipur as well as Civil Suit filed by respondent-1 before the Court at Rajnandgaon are one and the same. He pointed out that pleading made in written statement in earlier suit before Court at Kashipur as well as Civil Suit filed by respondent-1 before the Court at Rajnandgaon are one and the same. If Civil Suit filed by the petitioner is decided based on finding recorded by trial Court at Kashipur considering the written statement of respondent-1, then, it will apply as resjudicata to the subsequent Civil Suit filed by respondent-1/plaintiff. Learned trial Court has not considered that issue involved in suit filed by respondent at Rajnandgaon subsequently, is directly and substantially in issue involved in previously instituted suit, hence, subsequent suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is to be stayed under provisions of Section 10 of CPC. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of Aspi Jal and another Vs. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor reported in (2013) 4 SCC 333 . He also pointed out that learned Court below dismissed application under Section 10 of the CPC, considering that parties to the suit are not one and the same as in the earlier suit, which is also not sustainable in the facts of the case. He pointed out that defendant-2 in the plaint filed by respondent-1 before the Court at Rajnandgaon is an employee of the petitioner/defendant-1. Defendant-2/respondent-2 added is only a nominal/proforma party in the suit, hence it cannot be said that parties to the subsequent suit filed by respondent1 are not the same parties as in previous suit. Petitioner/defendant-1 is only the contesting party in the subsequent suit also. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Calcutta in case of Shorab Merwanji Modi and others Vs Mansata Film Distributors and others reported in AIR 1957 Cal 727 and in Order of Gauhati High Court in case of Mahangu Prasad Sah and another Vs Prayag Sah and others reported in AIR 1975 Gau 40 . 3. Shri Anup Majumdar, learned counsel for respondent-1 would submit that learned trial Court considering facts and circumstances of the case, issue involved in earlier suit filed by petitioner/defendant at Kashipur and subsequent suit filed by respondent-1/plaintiff at Rajnandgaon, has rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 10 of the CPC by petitioner, which does not call for any interference. 3. Shri Anup Majumdar, learned counsel for respondent-1 would submit that learned trial Court considering facts and circumstances of the case, issue involved in earlier suit filed by petitioner/defendant at Kashipur and subsequent suit filed by respondent-1/plaintiff at Rajnandgaon, has rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 10 of the CPC by petitioner, which does not call for any interference. Only because of two disputes arising out of one and the same transaction, subsequent suit will not hit by Section 10 of CPC. Relief claimed in both the suits by both the parties are entirely different. In the 1st suit, petitioner has claimed relief of recovery of amount towards supply of goods made to respondent-1/plaintiff, whereas, respondent-1 has filed suit before Court at Rajnandgaon, claiming damages. Amount which is subject matter of both the suits are also entirely different. Parties in both the suits are not one and the same. Hence, there is no application of provisions of Section 10 of CPC, as rightly held by the trial Court. In support of his contention placed reliance upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair Vs Narayanan Nair and others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 277 . 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused documents available in record. 5. It is not in dispute that petitioner supplied goods to respondent-1 through different consignments for which different invoices were issued. Petitioner filed suit for recovery of amount of Rs.2,96,800/- pleading that petitioner supplied goods to respondent-1 from 11.06.2015 to 20.08.2016, total value of goods supplied by petitioner was Rs.10,42,368/- out of which respondent-1 has paid only Rs.7,45,568/-. The value of goods supplied by petitioner and amount paid by respondent-1 is not disputed by respondent-1. Respondent-1 submitted written statement to the earlier suit filed by petitioner before the court at Kashipur, District Udhampur, at Uttarakhand, wherein respondent-1/plaintiff admitted payment of Rs.7,45,568/-, with respect to arrears of amount to be paid of Rs.2,96,800/-, it was pleaded that petitioner has supplied goods of interior quality, due to which he suffered loss and further pleaded that he has filed claim before the District Consumer Forum, Rajnandgaon claiming Rs.9,60,000/- towards damages. 6. To appreciate submission of learned counsel for respondent-1 that pleadings in the first suit filed by him (petitioner) and subsequent suit filed by respondent-1 are entirely on different facts and for different reliefs. 6. To appreciate submission of learned counsel for respondent-1 that pleadings in the first suit filed by him (petitioner) and subsequent suit filed by respondent-1 are entirely on different facts and for different reliefs. Perusal of pleadings in subsequent suit would also show that there was pleadings of transaction between petitioner and respondent-1 of supply of goods for the same period and during the period of supply, respondent-1 received goods of inferior quality which cause loss to him and therefore, claimed damages of Rs.9,60,000/-. 7. Provision under Section 10 of CPC mandates that no Court shall proceed to trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between the parties. The parties to earlier suit are also the same except addition of one of the employee of petitioner in the subsequent suit, who in the facts of the case appears to be formal party being an employee of petitioner. Main issue in both suits is supply of goods by petitioner to respondent-1. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Aspi Jal and another (supra) has held as under : “9. Section 10 of the Code which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows: 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. Explanation.- The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action. 11. In the present case, the parties in all the three suits are one and the same and the court in which the first two suits have been instituted is competent to grant the relief claimed in the third suit. 11. In the present case, the parties in all the three suits are one and the same and the court in which the first two suits have been instituted is competent to grant the relief claimed in the third suit. The only question which invites our adjudication is as to whether “the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suits”. The key words in Section 10 are “the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit”. The test for applicability of Section 10 of the Code is whether on a final decision being reached in the previously instituted suit, such decision would operate as res-judicata in the subsequent suit. To put it differently one may ask, can the plaintiff get the same relief in the subsequent suit, if the earlier suit has been dismissed? In our opinion, if the answer is in affirmative, the subsequent suit is not fit to be stayed. However, we hasten to add then when the matter in controversy is the same, it is immaterial what further relief is claimed in the subsequent suit.” 9. In aforementioned ruling, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered that for applicability of Section 10 of CPC it is to be tested that if final decision being reached in previously instituted suit would operate as resjudicata in the subsequent suit. 10. If the facts of case at hand are considered in light of aforementioned dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court, where, defendant therein/respondent-1 has taken a plea that goods supplied by petitioner to him were of inferior quality and caused loss to him, therefore, he is not liable to make payment of arrears/balance of amount of consignment as claimed in relief. The issues are to be framed by trial Court based on pleading of both the parties. If, for any reason, based on pleadings of parties before trial Court and evidence of parties in previous suit gives finding against defendant that will definitely operate as resjudicata in the subsequent suit. 11. Case law relied upon by learned counsel for respondent-1 in case of Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair (supra) would not come to the rescue of respondent-1. If, for any reason, based on pleadings of parties before trial Court and evidence of parties in previous suit gives finding against defendant that will definitely operate as resjudicata in the subsequent suit. 11. Case law relied upon by learned counsel for respondent-1 in case of Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair (supra) would not come to the rescue of respondent-1. More so, in view of discussion made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in para- 17 of above judgment which reads as under: In Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition) it has been stated as follows: "'Cause of action' has been defined as meaning simply a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the Court a remedy against another person. The phrase has been held from earliest time to include every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, and every fact which a defendant would have a right to traverse. 'Cause of action' has also been taken to mean that particular act on the part of the defendant which gives the plaintiff his cause of complaint, or the subject matter of grievance founding the action, not merely the technical cause of action." 12. Defense taken by respondent-1 in previous suit, if decided against him, then, it will apply as resjudicata to subsequent suit filed by respondent-1 /plaintiff, hence, cause of action which is supply of goods by petitioner to respondent-1, asking for payment by petitioner and denial of payment by respondent-1 on the grounds mentioned in written statement is sufficient to show that cause of action in both the suits are directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between same parties. 13. In the facts of the case and in view of rulings of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, case of petitioner is squarely covered by aforementioned judgment. Findings to the issues to be framed based on pleadings of respondent-1 in previous suit, will definitely affect the judgment of subsequent suit filed by respondent-1. 14. So far as submission of learned counsel for the respondent that in previous suit and subsequent suit, parties shall be one and the same, perusal of cause-title of both cases would show that main contesting party in previous suit and subsequent suit are petitioner and respondent-1. 14. So far as submission of learned counsel for the respondent that in previous suit and subsequent suit, parties shall be one and the same, perusal of cause-title of both cases would show that main contesting party in previous suit and subsequent suit are petitioner and respondent-1. Respondent-2 appears to be a proforma party as appearing from cause-title of subsequent suit filed at Rajnandgaon and pleading at para-1, wherein it was pleaded that it is the petitioner who supplied the goods to respondent-1 there is no allegation as such against respondent-2, but for petitioner only. 15. Ground raised by learned counsel for respondent-1 that dispute in the subsequent suit is not between the same parties, hence Section 10 of CPC will into have any application, has been considered by the High Court of Calcutta in case of Shorab Mewanji Modi and others (supra) and held that: “34. It remains to refer to one other matter. The learned Judge has also given it as a reason for refusing to stay the suit before him under Section 10 that there is an additional party in that suit. That, by itself, does not make Section 10 inapplicable. It is true that the section speaks of 'same parties', but it has been held that the 'same parties' mean 'the parties as between whom the matter substantially in issue has arisen and has to be decided'. Complete identity of either the subject-matter or the parties is not required. Authority for that proper sition will be found in (Six parties in one Suit and five parties in another); and Wahid-un-Nessa Bibi v. Zamin All Shah, ILR 42 All 290 : (AIR 1920 All 70) (K); ; and Luxmi Bank Ltd v. Hari Kissan, ILR (1948) Nag 403 : (AIR 1948 Nag 297) (L). The additional party impleaded in the Calcutta suit is the company Kapurchand Limited, to which the payments due to Modi under the agreements were to be made. No allegation is made against the company except that some money was paid to it and that it was a party to and knew of the misrepresentations made by Modi. I do not think that the joinder of Kapurchand Ltd., on such allegations raises any separate and substantial issue as between it and the Mansata so as to make Section 10 inapplicable.” 16. I do not think that the joinder of Kapurchand Ltd., on such allegations raises any separate and substantial issue as between it and the Mansata so as to make Section 10 inapplicable.” 16. In case of Mahangu Prasad Sah (supra), Hon’ble Gauhati High Court has held thus: 6.”Same parties” within the meaning of Section 10 of the CPC contemplates same effective parties who seek reliefs or against whom reliefs are sought. If some persons are added as nominal or pro forma parties in the subsequent suit that fact will not detract from the fact that the parties are essentially the same in both the suits within the meaning of Section 10 of the Code.” 17. In the facts of the case, respondent-2 is only a nominal and proforma party being an employee of petitioner, and therefore, dispute in previous suit and subsequent suit filed at Rajnandgaon by respondent-1 is mainly between petitioner and respondent-1. Hence, parties to the suit within the meaning of Section 10 CPC in both the suits are one and the same. 18. For the foregoing reasons, I am having no hesitation in holding that learned trial Court erred in rejecting application under Section 10 filed by petitioner vide impugned order which is not sustainable and it is hereby set aside. Consequently, application filed under Section 10 of CPC by petitioner is allowed, proceedings pending in Civil Suit-8B of 2018 between M/s Paras Drip Irrigation Vs M/s Flexituff Ventures International Limited and another, filed by respondent-1 before the Court at Rajnandgaon shall remain stayed till the disposal of previous suit bearing No.55 of 2017 pending before Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Kashipur, District Udhampur, Uttarakhand. 19. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed.