ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in case W.P. No. 7924/2016, by which the order of the Trial Court dated 20.10.2016 passed on an application filed under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) was allowed and the said order being affirmed by the High Court, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 3. It is noted from the Office Report that the respondents, particularly the contesting respondent No. 6 herein, has been served but there is no representation on behalf of the said respondent. In these circumstances we have heard learned counsel for the appellants only. 4. Briefly stated, the facts are that respondent No. 6 has filed Civil Suit No. 15A/2011 seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the sale deed dated 12.12.2008, which is stated to have been allegedly executed by him, is null and void. During the pendency of the said suit, the appellants herein filed Civil Suit No. 158A/2013 seeking eviction of respondent No. 6 (plaintiff) in the aforesaid suit as well as other tenants. 5. In the second suit namely Civil Suit No. 158A/2013, an application was filed under Section 10 of the CPC seeking stay of the said Civil Suit. This was on account of the pendency of the earlier suit filed by respondent No. 6 herein, being Civil Suit No. 15A/2011 renumbered as Civil Suit 7A/2015 wherein the very same subject matter arising between the very same parties was under controversy. The Trial Court by its order dated 20.10.2016 allowed the said application and consequently stayed the proceedings in C.S. No. 158A/2013 which is the second suit. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellants herein filed W.P. No. 7924/2016 before the High Court which has dismissed the said writ petition. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that although the subject matter of both the suits, being immovable property bearing House No. 44, Bima Nagar, Indore, M.P. is one and the same, nevertheless the issues which arise in the two suits are not directly and substantially the same. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that although the subject matter of both the suits, being immovable property bearing House No. 44, Bima Nagar, Indore, M.P. is one and the same, nevertheless the issues which arise in the two suits are not directly and substantially the same. He contended that in the suit filed by respondent No. 6, namely Civil Suit No. 15A/2011, the prayers were with regard to a declaration of title and that the sale deed dated 12.12.2008 in favour of the appellants herein was null and void and for permanent injunction whereas, Civil Suit No. 158A/2013 filed by the appellant herein was for eviction of respondent No. 6 herein and other tenants in respect of the very same suit scheduled property which was conveyed by respondent No. 6 in favour of the appellants herein. 8. The issues which arise in the first suit, inter alia, for declaration and permanent injunction are totally distinct from the issues which arise in suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, mesne profits and for eviction. Therefore, the Trial Court as well as the High Court were not right in allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 6 herein under Section 10 of the CPC and thereby staying the second suit filed by the appellant herein. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders may be set aside and a direction may be issued to the Trial Court to consider the suit filed by the appellants herein for eviction of respondent No. 6 herein and other tenants in accordance with law. 9. Section 10 of the CPC reads 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 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.” 10. The object of this Section is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. This Section deals with a rule of procedure. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter in both the suits is identical. The crucial 3 words in Section 10 are “the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue” in the previously instituted suit. The aforesaid words are different from “incidentally or collaterally in issue.” Therefore, there must be identity of the matter in issue in both the suits inasmuch as the subject matter in both the proceedings is identical. But even on a consideration of the two suits, even if the property in respect of two suits is one and the same but the issues are separate and there is no identity at all with regard to the cause of action and also the reliefs that are sought in both the suits, the subsequent suit between the same parties, is not liable to be stayed under Section 10. Not only the matter in issue in the second suit should also be directly and substantially in issue in the first suit, but that the second suit must be for the same relief as that claimed in the first suit. Therefore, it is not only the identical subject matter but also the relief claimed in both suits that determine the applicability of Section 10. Thus, for instance, if the first suit is for partition and separate possession of the suit scheduled property and the second suit is for ejectment of a tenant from the same, then Section 10 would not apply. 11. In the instant case, the detailed narration of facts and contentions would not call for reiteration. Thus, for instance, if the first suit is for partition and separate possession of the suit scheduled property and the second suit is for ejectment of a tenant from the same, then Section 10 would not apply. 11. In the instant case, the detailed narration of facts and contentions would not call for reiteration. Admittedly, two suits have been filed, one, by respondent No. 6 herein seeking a declaratory relief insofar as the sale deed dated 12.12.2008 is concerned in respect of the suit scheduled property bearing House No. 44, Bima Nagar, Indore, M.P. It is in respect of the very same property that the appellants herein have sought for eviction of respondent No. 6 herein (defendant) in the aforementioned suit as well as other tenants. The issues which arise in the suits for declaration of title and that the sale deed is void are quite distinct from the issues which arise in a suit seeking eviction of tenants. Although the said suits may be in respect of the very same scheduled property, nevertheless, the issues do not overlap and are not directly and substantially the same. They may overlap only incidentally. 12. In the circumstances, we find that the Trial Court was not right in allowing the application filed by respondent No. 6 herein seeking stay of proceedings in Civil Suit No. 158A/2013. Instead, on the said application, the Trial Court could have ordered that both the suits could be clubbed together and common evidence could have been let in as the issues to be raised in the respective suits are in respect of the same subject matter and between the same parties to a certain extent and disposed of the two suits in accordance with law. 13. It is needless to observe that any decree passed in the suit filed by respondent No. 6 herein would have a consequential bearing in the suit filed by the appellants herein for eviction of respondent No. 6 herein and other tenants from suit scheduled property. Hence, the suits could be tried and disposed of simultaneously. 14. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the High Court affirming the order of the Trial Court dated 20.10.2016 as well as the order dated 11.10.2018 are set aside. 15. The appeal is allowed. The Trial Court is at liberty to club both the suits and dispose the suits in accordance with law. 16. 14. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the High Court affirming the order of the Trial Court dated 20.10.2016 as well as the order dated 11.10.2018 are set aside. 15. The appeal is allowed. The Trial Court is at liberty to club both the suits and dispose the suits in accordance with law. 16. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.