ORDER : Heard Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Praveen Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Challenging the order dated 15.03.2022 in I.A. No.368 of 2021 in I.A. No.283 of 2021 in O.S. No.144 of 2021 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, the present Civil Revision Case is filed. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE: i) Respondent No.1 herein had filed a suit vide O.S. No.130 of 2021 against the petitioner herein and 2 others i.e., Mr. K. Rajeshwar Reddy and Mr. A. Devender Reddy, seeking the following relief: “1. Decree be passed for cancellation of Registered agreement of sale cum GPA No.6656/2016, dated: 19-05-2016, SRO Mahabubnagar obtained by Defendant No.1 by fraud from the plaintiff is illegal and void document in respect of suit schedule land and alienation of suit land by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 and 3 and every subsequent sale deed are illegal and void documents. 2. Issue of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from claiming any right over the suit schedule land. 3. Costs of the suit be awarded.” ii) The petitioner herein had filed a suit vide O.S. No.144 of 2021 against the respondents herein for the following relief: “i) To pass perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their followers, and their men or any other persons from interfering with lawful and peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. ii) To award the costs of the suit. iii) To grant such any other relief or reliefs for which the plaintiff is entitled and this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, in circumstances of the case.” iii) In both the suits, the suit schedule property is one and the same i.e., the land in Survey No.46/1, Dry Land to an extent Acs.4-15 guntas, situated at Yaronipally Village of Hanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. iv) Along with O.S. No.144 of 2021, the petitioner herein had also filed an interlocutory application vide I.A. No.283 of 2021 seeking ad interim injunction and the same was granted. iv) Along with O.S. No.144 of 2021, the petitioner herein had also filed an interlocutory application vide I.A. No.283 of 2021 seeking ad interim injunction and the same was granted. v) Thereafter, the respondents herein had filed an application under Section - 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) vide I.A. No.368 of 2021 in I.A. No.283 of 2021 in O.S. No.144 of 2021, to stay further proceedings in O.S. No.144 of 2021 till the disposal of the suit in O.S. No.130 of 2021 on the following grounds: a) They have already filed a suit vide O.S. No.130 of 2021 against the petitioner herein; b) A notice was ordered; c) The said suit is pending; d) Therefore, the petitioner herein cannot file a suit in respect of the very same land; and e) As per Section - 10 of the C.P.C., all proceedings of subsequent suit i.e., O.S. No.144 of 2021 filed by the petitioner herein to be stayed. vi) The said application was opposed by the petitioner herein stating that the relief sought by him is different and the same will not fall within the ambit of Section - 10 of the C.P.C. Therefore, both the suits have to be tried and decided. vii) Vide order dated 15.03.2022, the Court below has allowed the said application on the ground that the property involves in both the suits is one and the same, but the relief claimed is different. There is a chance of arising complications in future if findings are different in both the suits. With the said findings, the Court below has stayed the proceedings in O.S. No.144 of 2021 till the disposal of O.S. No.130 of 2021. 4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER: i) Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned order is against the material on record and against the conditions specified in Section - 10 of the C.P.C. ii) The relief sought in both the suits are different though some of the parties are common and suit schedule property is one and the same. However, at the most, both the suits can be tried together by clubbing the same. iii) There is no consideration of the said aspects by the Court below in the impugned order. However, at the most, both the suits can be tried together by clubbing the same. iii) There is no consideration of the said aspects by the Court below in the impugned order. iv) In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments on M/s. Amrutlal & Company, Merchants & Commission Agents, Nizamabad v. M/s. Rankids Impex Private Limited, New Delhi, 2014 (4) ALD 129 , Aspi Jal v. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor, (2013) 4 SCC 333 and K. Venkata Swamy v. Smt. Saikna Bee, 2008 (5) ALT 749 . v) With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel sought to allow the revision. 5. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: i) Mr. N. Praveen Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, would contend that the suit schedule property in both the suits is one and the same; parties are also common and, therefore, to avoid conflict of judgments, the proceedings in subsequent suit i.e., O.S. No.144 of 2021 are liable to be stayed. ii) The Court below considering all the said aspects and the conditions stipulated in Section -10 of the C.P.C. and also the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sairabi Sayyad Abdul Aziz deceased through her L.Rs v. Abdul Rashid Abdul Majid, 2002 (2) CCC 444 (Bom.) allowed the petition staying the proceedings in the subsequent suit. Thus, there is no error in the order under challenge. iii) In support of his contentions, learned counsel has also relied upon the decisions in Aspi Jal, which is also relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Noor Ahmed v. Mazharul Qamar, 2013 (6) ALT 286 and G.K. Reddy v. G.Aswatha Reddy, 2012 (3) ALD 361 . iv) With the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel sought to dismiss the revision. 6. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT: i) It is not in dispute that the suit schedule property in both the suits is one and the same. The suit filed by the petitioner herein i.e., O.S. No.144 of 2021 is subsequent to the suit filed by respondent No.1 herein i.e., O.S. No.130 of 2021. In both the suits, the petitioner herein and respondent No.1 herein are common. In O.S. No.130 of 2021, there are two more defendants i.e., Mr. K. Rajeshwar Reddy and Mr. A. Devender Reddy. The suit filed by the petitioner herein i.e., O.S. No.144 of 2021 is subsequent to the suit filed by respondent No.1 herein i.e., O.S. No.130 of 2021. In both the suits, the petitioner herein and respondent No.1 herein are common. In O.S. No.130 of 2021, there are two more defendants i.e., Mr. K. Rajeshwar Reddy and Mr. A. Devender Reddy. In O.S. No.130 of 2021, respondent No.1 herein sought the relief of cancellation of registered Agreement of Sale - cum - General Power of Attorney bearing document No.6656 of 2016, dated 19.05.2016, and for perpetual injunction as mentioned above. Whereas, the relief sought by the petitioner herein in the subsequent suit O.S. No.144 of 2021 is for perpetual injunction against the respondents herein as mentioned above. Therefore, the relief sought in both the suits is different though the suit schedule property is one and the same. The petitioner and respondent No.1 herein are one and the same in both the suit, but there are two more defendants in O.S. No.130 of 2021. It is relevant to note that both the suits are pending before the very same Court i.e., Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. Therefore, it cannot be said that both the suits are pending with regard to the very same relief as the reliefs are different and some of the parties are different. ii) In this regard, it is apt to refer to Section - 10 of the C.P.C., which is as under: “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 have 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.” iii) In K. Venkata Swamy, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, considering the fact that the suits are pending before the same Court, both of them are between the same parties, in respect of same subject matter, instead of ordering stay of the latter suit under Section - 10 of the CPC, directed for disposal of both the suits together so that all the issues can be finally thrashed out and further protraction of the litigation can be avoided. iv) In Gupte Cardiac Care Center and Hospital v. Olympic Pharma Care (P) Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 756 , the Apex Court held that if the matter in the later suit is found to be “directly and substantially in issue” in the previously instituted suit, the later suit is liable to be stayed under Section - 10 of the C.P.C. v) In National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. C. Prameshwara, (2005) 2 SCC 256 , on examination of the facts therein and also the scope and ambit of Section - 10 of the C.P.C., the Apex Court held as under: “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. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject-matter in both the suits is identical. 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 contradistinction 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 the subject-matter in both the proceedings is identical'.” 35. Thus, the Court held that the object of Section 10 is to avoid recording of conflicting findings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit and 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 and that Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter in both the suits is identical. 36. Recently in Aspi Jal and another (5 supra), the Court again reiterated the principles laid down in the above decision in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (1 supra). In addition it also indicated that the test would be to ask, 'can the plaintiff get the same relief in the subsequent suit, if the earlier suit has been dismissed?' And if the answer is in the affirmative, the subsequent suit is not fit to be stayed. It also held that even if many of the matters in issue are common between the suits, unless the entire subject matter of the two suits is the same, Section 10 will not apply. It also held that even if many of the matters in issue are common between the suits, unless the entire subject matter of the two suits is the same, Section 10 will not apply. It clearly stated that Section 10 will not apply where a few of the matters in issue are common and will apply only when the entire subject matter in controversy is same and that 'the matter in issue' is not equivalent to 'any of the questions in issue'…..” vi) Relying on the principle in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/s. Amrutlal & Company held that the object of Section - 10 of the C.P.C. is to avoid recording of conflicting findings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit and 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 and that Section - 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter in both the suits is identical. vii) In Aspi Jal, the Apex Court reiterated the said principle. viii) In view of the said principle and also considering the factors referred to in Section - 10 of the C.P.C., coming to the case on hand, as discussed above, except the suit schedule property in both the suits, the relief sought in both the suits are different. Some of the parties are different. Both the suits are pending before the very same Court. Therefore, the facts of the case in the order under challenge will not fall under the conditions mentioned in Section - 10 of the C.P.C. Since both the suits are pending in the very same Court, instead of trying them separately, it would be better to try together by clubbing both the suits. The respondents herein have filed I.A. No.368 of 2021 seeking to stay the proceedings in O.S. No.144 of 2021. Without considering the said facts, the scope and ambit of Section - 10 of the C.P.C., and also the principle laid down by the Apex Court and the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, the Court below stayed the subsequent suit filed by the petitioner herein i.e., O.S. No.144 of 2021. Without considering the said facts, the scope and ambit of Section - 10 of the C.P.C., and also the principle laid down by the Apex Court and the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, the Court below stayed the subsequent suit filed by the petitioner herein i.e., O.S. No.144 of 2021. By virtue of the stay granted by the Court below vide the impugned order, interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner in I.A. No.283 of 2021 has become inoperative which will definitely cause prejudice to the petitioner herein. Therefore, the impugned order is not an order on proper appreciation of the provisions of Section -10 of the C.P.C. and also the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions. ix) Mr. N. Praveen Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents referring to the principle laid down in Aspi Jal and G.K. Reddy would submit that the Court below has passed the order under challenge properly and there is no error in it. However, in G.K. Reddy, this Court has considered the scope and ambit of Section - 10 of the C.P.C. and the effect of stay granted. But, the facts of the said case are different to the facts of the present case and, therefore, the same is not helpful to the respondents herein. 7. CONCLUSION: i) Viewed from any angle, the impugned order is not on appreciation of correct law and on facts and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. ii) The present Civil Revision Case is accordingly allowed setting aside the order dated 15.03.2022 in I.A. No.368 of 2021 in I.A. No.283 of 2021 in O.S. No.144 of 2021 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar. Consequently, I.A. No.368 of 2021 filed by the respondents herein in I.A. No.283 of 2021 in O.S. No.144 of 2021 is dismissed. iii) In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed.