ORDER : 1. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "(a) Call for the records; (b) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the common order dated 26/09/2019 passed by the LXXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Com. O.S.No.752/2017 on I.A.No.8 and Com. O.S.No.754/2017 on I.A.No.3 (Annexure-A) (c) Allow the I.A. No.8 in Com.O.S.752/2017 (Annexure-H) and I.A.No.3 in Com.O.S.No.754/2017 (Annexure-J) (d) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Sri.Shubham More, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Sagar Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed CS.No.88/2016 before the High Court of Calcutta against the respondent seeking certain reliefs. During the pendency of the said suit, the respondent filed Com.OS.No.752/2017 and Com.OS.No.754/2017 on the file of LXXXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-83) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commercial Court' for short), seeking prayer for recovery of money. Admittedly, the suits filed by the respondent are later in point. Hence, he filed an application in both the suits, they are numbered as IA.Nos.3 and 8 under Section 10 of the CPC seeking to stay the further proceedings in the said suits on the ground that the suit filed by the petitioner in CS.No.88/2016 which is pending adjudication before the Calcutta High Court is earlier in point and issue involved in the earlier suit and later suit are one and the same, hence, the same cannot be proceeded. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also raised a territorial jurisdiction issue in the said application. However, the trial Court erroneously rejected both the application. It is submitted that the prayer sought in the suit filed by the petitioner which is pending before the Kolkata High Court is a comprehensive suit and once that is decided, the finding recorded in the said suit could be in conflict with the finding in the suits filed by the respondent in Bengaluru. Hence, it would be appropriate to stay the further proceedings in Com.O.S.Nos.752/2017 and 754/2017 pending before the Commercial Court, Bengaluru. Hence, he seeks to set aside the impugned order by allowing IA.Nos.3 and 8 filed by the petitioner. 3. Hence, it would be appropriate to stay the further proceedings in Com.O.S.Nos.752/2017 and 754/2017 pending before the Commercial Court, Bengaluru. Hence, he seeks to set aside the impugned order by allowing IA.Nos.3 and 8 filed by the petitioner. 3. Per contra, Sri.Varun Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Saravana P., learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the suit filed by the petitioner in CS.No.88/2016 is for different relief and the suit in Com.O.S.Nos.752/2017 and 754/2017 filed by the respondent are for recovery of money based on the invoices as the respondent supplied a goods to the petitioner and to recover the said amount, suits have been filed. The trial Court considered the scope of the suits pending before it and the scope of the suit filed by the petitioner before the Calcutta High Court are distinct and proceeded to reject the applications and the same does not call for any interference. It is submitted that the petitioner has also filed an applications under Order 7 Rule11 & under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and the Commercial Court has considered the said applications and held that the issue with regard to the territorial jurisdiction can be gone into along with other issues vide order dated 18.08.2018 and 24.07.2018 and the said orders have attained finality and there is no challenge to the same. Hence, the petitioner cannot submit on the jurisdiction.Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions canvassed on both sides. 5. The undisputed facts between the parties are that the petitioner herein filed civil suit in CS.No.88/2016 before High Court of Calcutta. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions canvassed on both sides. 5. The undisputed facts between the parties are that the petitioner herein filed civil suit in CS.No.88/2016 before High Court of Calcutta. The prayer in the said suit reads as under: "The plaintiff prays for Leave under clause-12 of the Letters Patent and claim:- (a) A Decree for Declaration that the termination of the distributorship agreement for State of West Bengal is void, illegal and unlawful; (b) A Decree of Declaration that the distributorship agreement for the State of Bihar between the Plaintiff and the first Defendant, purportedly terminated by the letter dated 9 th October, 2015, is void, illegal and unlawful; (c) A Decree of Declaration that the Plaintiff has an interest in the property of the Defendants, being the subject matter of the exclusive distributorship agreement dated 21 st May 2008 extended upto 21 st August, 2019 for the State of Bihar between the Plaintiff and the first Defendant and the same cannot be terminated to the breach of such interest of the Plaintiff. (d) A Decree for Declaration that letter dated 9 th October, 2015, sent by the Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiff, purportedly terminating the exclusive distributorship agreement dated 21 st May 2008 extended till 21 st August 2019, be delivered up and cancelled. (d) A Decree for Declaration that letter dated 9 th October, 2015, sent by the Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiff, purportedly terminating the exclusive distributorship agreement dated 21 st May 2008 extended till 21 st August 2019, be delivered up and cancelled. (e) A Decree for a sum of Rs.1,77,75,37,057.13 (Rupees One Hundred Seventy Seven Crores Seventy Five Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Fifty Seven and Thirteen Paisa Only) as pleaded in Paragraph78 hereto; (f) Interim interest and interest upon judgment at the rate of 18% per annum; (g) Alternatively, an enquiry into loss and damages and a decree for such sum as may be found due and payable by the defendants jointly and/or severally and in such proportion against each of the said defendants as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper; (h) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from selling or distributing directly or through any C & F agent or otherwise any goods forming subject matter of the plaintiff's distributorship agreements, till such time as the plaintiff is able to dispose of all the unsold stock more fully stated in Paragrahp "68" hereto; (i) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from appointing any distributor, C & F agent or engaging any other person/concern for sale or distribution of any goods of the type which forms subject matter of the plaintiff's distributorship agreements in the State of West Bengal or in the State of Bihar and especially in the State of Bihar till such time as the plaintiff is able to dispose of all the unsold stock more fully stated in paragraph 68 hereto; (j) A Decree for Declaration that the termination of the distributorship agreement for State of West Bengal is void, illegal and unlawful; (k) A decree for a declaration that the Second Defendant is obliged to adjust their purported claim arising out of channel financing facility agreement from the amount receivable by the plaintiff from the First Defendant; (l) A decree for a perpetual injunction restraining the Second Defendant from raising any claim against the plaintiff without adjusting their claim arising out of the channel financing facility agreement from the receivable by the plaintiff from the First Defendant. (m) Receiver; (n) Injunction; (o) Attachment; (p) Costs; (q) Such further and/or other relief or reliefs." Admittedly, the suit filed by the petitioner in CS.No.88/2016 is prior than the suits filed by the respondents before the Commercial Court, Bengaluru. The aforesaid extracted prayer in the suit filed by the petitioner clearly indicates that the petitioner seeking declaration that the termination of the distributorship agreement with relating to State of West Bengal and State of Bihar are null and void. It would be useful to extract the prayer of Com.OS.Nos.752/2017 and 754/2017 for easy reference. In Com.OS.No.752/2017 "a) Pass a decree against the Defendant Company, for a sum of Rs.1,30,54,811.72 (Rupees One Crore Thirty Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Eleven and Paise seventy two), which includes, the amounts adjusted under the following heads i.e., IT/Annual Maintenance Charges ("IT/AMC"), Capillery/CRM Loyalty Charges, Cheque Deposit and Dishonor, Clearance Entry, Invoices, Over Draft Interest Debit Note, VPN Charges and Signing up/Architect Fee, along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum (compounded annually), calculated from the date of filing of the present suit till the date of actual realization. b) Award costs of the suit in favour of the Plaintiff Company. c) Any other relief/reliefs which this Court may deem fit and appropriate under the circumstances may be passed against the Defendant Company and in favour of the Plaintiff, in the interest of justice." In Com.OS.No.754/2017 "a) Pass a money decree against the Defendant Company, for a sum of Rs.2,76,55,253.33 (Rupees Two Crore Seventy Six Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Three and paise Thirty Three) was due and outstanding, payable by the Defendant Company, which includes the amounts adjusted under the following heads i.e., IT/Annual Maintenance Charges ("IT/AMC"), Invoices, Advertisement credit note, Bank guarantee encashment, Capillery/CRM loyalty, Cheque Deposit and Dishonor, Clearance entry, Expense reimbursement credit note, Incentive credit note, Over Draft interest debit note, Price difference credit note, Sales return credit note and Shortage credit note along with pendent elite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum (compounded annually), calculated from the date of filing the present suit till the date of actual realization. b) Award costs of the suit in favour of the Plaintiff. b) Award costs of the suit in favour of the Plaintiff. c) Any other relief/reliefs which this court may deem fit and appropriate under the circumstances may be passed against the Defendant Company and in favour of the Plaintiff, in the interest of justice." 6. The plaint averments and the prayer in the aforesaid plaints indicate that the respondent has filed the aforesaid two commercial suits against the petitioner company for a sum claimed in the prayer based on the invoices referred in the plaint. Admittedly, the aforesaid two suits filed by the respondent are later in point. However, the prayers sought in the subsequent suit filed by the respondent referred supra are distinct and different. In a suit filed by the petitioner, relief is for declaration that the termination of distributorship agreement dated 11.07.2007 and 21.05.2008 are sought to be declared as null and void. However, the suits filed by the respondent in Com.O.S.No.752/2017 and 754/2017 are for recovery of money based on invoices. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara , AIR 2005 SC 242 at paragraph No.8 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 key words in Section 10 are “the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue” in the previous instituted 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." 8. It is clear from the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the object of Section 10 is to prevent parallel trials, which could lead to conflicting findings. However, the same is only applicable if the matter of the issues involved in the two suits are directly and substantially the same. In the case on hand, the Trial Court has rightly recorded a finding that considering the nature of relief sought and the pleading on record, the matter in the issue of the suit filed by the petitioners is not directly and substantially involved in the matter of the suit filed by the defendant. Hence, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the trial Court with regard to the rejection of the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the CPC. The learned counsel for the respondent is right in his submission that the Commercial Court, Bengaluru in the aforesaid suits vide order dated 24.07.2018 and 18.08.2018 has considered the applications filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 and under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC and recorded the finding that issue with regard to the territorial jurisdiction can be gone into along with other issues when the suits are decided finally, and the said order has attained finality. Hence, on this count also, the petition is required to fail. The trial Court considering the rival submissions and the material on record has rightly come to conclusion that the prayer sought in the suits filed by the respondent pending before the Commercial Court, Bengaluru and the suit of the petitioner pending before the High Court of Calcutta are substantially distinct and rejected the applications. The trial Court considering the rival submissions and the material on record has rightly come to conclusion that the prayer sought in the suits filed by the respondent pending before the Commercial Court, Bengaluru and the suit of the petitioner pending before the High Court of Calcutta are substantially distinct and rejected the applications. I do not find any error or perversity in the aforesaid finding of the Commercial Court calling for interference in the impugned order. For the aforementioned reason I proceed to pass the following: ORDER : i) The writ petition is devoid of merits.Accordingly, the same is rejected. ii) The suit is of the year 2017, hence, the trial Court is requested to consider the disposal of the same on priority basis. iii) In view of the rejection of the petition, IA.No.1/2023 does not survive for consideration.