JUDGMENT : MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Khataniar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. K Jain, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3. No one has appeared for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, though the names of two counsels, namely, Mr. M Kashyap and Mr. S.A. Singh are shown as engaged counsel for the said respondents in the cause list. It also appears that on the last date i.e. on 15.10.2025, Mr. N Bhuyan, learned counsel had appeared on behalf of Mr. M Kashyap, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. However, since when the matter was called on for hearing, no one has appeared for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, this Court decided to proceed ex-parte against the said respondents in this Civil Revision Petition. 2. This Civil Revision Petition (I/O) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner Deepak Sarmah, impugning the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Title Suit No. 713/2022 whereby the application filed by respondent No. 3 under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 of the said Code was allowed and the further proceedings of Title Suit No. 713/2022 along with Misc.(J) Case No. 1116/2022 was stayed. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant revision petition, in brief, are that Title Suit No. 713/2022 has been filed by the present petitioner, claiming the relief of specific performance of agreement to sale dated 05.03.2020, which was executed by the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as the power of attorney holder of present respondent No. 3 for sale of a plot of land, measuring about 4 Kathas, 12 Lechas covered by Dag No. 843 of KP Patta No. 795 under Beltola Moza in Dispur Revenue Circle in the district of Kamrup(M), Assam. The present respondent No. 3 is the owner of the said plot of land. In the aforesaid suit, a declaration to the effect that the cancellation deed No. 3109 is null and void was also made. The said deed was executed by the respondent No. 3 on 26.02.2020. An alternative prayer has also been made for refund of the advance consideration amount Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakh), which was paid by the petitioner to respondent Nos. The said deed was executed by the respondent No. 3 on 26.02.2020. An alternative prayer has also been made for refund of the advance consideration amount Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakh), which was paid by the petitioner to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the plaintiff. 4. Prior to filing of the aforesaid Title Suit No. 713/2022, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed another title suit bearing Title Suit No. 258/2022 wherein the relief of declaration that the cancellation deed No. 3109 is null and void as well as for cancellation of the said cancellation deed was prayed for. Thereafter, in Title Suit No. 713/2022, the present respondent No. 3 had filed an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for stay of the aforesaid suit in view of pendency of Title Suit No. 258/2022 pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge No. 3 was made. The said prayer was made on the ground that the matters in issue in both suits are directly and substantially same and if the subsequent suit is allowed to be proceeded with, there is every likelihood of conflicting judgment on the same subject matter in two suits by two different courts. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 22.02.2024 passed in Title Suit No. 713/2022, the aforesaid suit was stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the petition filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed. 5. Mr. P Khataniar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court had erred while passing the impugned order by staying the Title Suit No. 713/2022 in view of pendency of Title Suit No. 258/2022 in as much as it failed to consider that in both the suits, cause of action were different and different reliefs were prayed for. He submits that the learned Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, failed to take into consideration that the entire subject matters in both the suits were not same. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in Title Suit No. 258/2022, the plaintiffs, namely, Khairul Hussain and Md. He submits that the learned Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, failed to take into consideration that the entire subject matters in both the suits were not same. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in Title Suit No. 258/2022, the plaintiffs, namely, Khairul Hussain and Md. Raju Ali were the power of attorney holder and the main relief which was sought for in the said suit was a declaration that the defendant No. 1 of that suit (owner of the suit land), namely, Rajesh Chandra Bharali is not entitled to get cancellation of the power of attorney No. 908 and also a declaration that the cancellation deed No. 3109 dated 06.11.2020 is illegal, null & void and not binding on the plaintiffs of that case. The other relief which was sought for in the Title Suit No. 258/2022 was revocation/cancellation of the cancellation deed No. 3109 dated 06.11.2020 and for issuance of precepts to that effect. 7. He submits that though one of the prayer in the Title Suit filed by the petitioner i.e. Title Suit No. 713/2022 was common to that of the prayer of Title Suit No. 258/2022. However, the main relief sought for by the present petitioner in Title Suit No. 713/2022 was for specific performance of the agreement dated 05.03.2020 which was executed between the present petitioner and the power of attorney holders, namely, Khairul Hussain and Md. Raju Ali. He submits that an alternative prayer was also made in the plaint for refund of the entire amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- along an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards damages. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that now the petitioner has also came to know about Title Suit No. 404/2019 which was also in respect of the same plot of land which is the subject matter of Title Suit No. 713/2022. In the said case, the suit has already been decreed in favor of one Sanjeev Bhattacharjee and Manoj Kumar Sharma and presently that case is pending at the stage of execution. In the said case, the suit has already been decreed in favor of one Sanjeev Bhattacharjee and Manoj Kumar Sharma and presently that case is pending at the stage of execution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner has, in the meanwhile, filed an application in Title Execution Case No. 26/2023 and by order dated 24.07.2023 the further proceedings of the execution case has been kept in abeyance till disposal of the Misc.(J) Case No. 756/2023 which was registered on the basis of an application filed by the present petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97, 99 & 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 9. He submits that as an alternative prayer for the refund of an advance amount has also been made in Title Suit No. 713/2022, the petitioner may not press the other relief sought for by him in the said Title Suit and may press for refund of the advance amount from the defendants of that case. He submits that the said relief is not dependent on the outcome of Title Suit No. 258/2022,hence, the Trial Court was not correct in staying the further proceedings of the Title Suit No. 713/2022 merely on the ground that the subject matter of both the suits i.e., the schedule land involved in both the cases is same. 10. He submits that it is essential for the applicability of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to a subsequent suit that the entire subject matter in controversy must be same in the previous suit as well as the subsequent suit. Mere existence of common relief in the previous suit as well as in the subsequent suits would not attract the provision of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “ Aspi Jal & Anr. Vs. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor ” reported in “ (2013) 4 SCC 333 ” . He has also cited another ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “ National Institute of mental health and Neuro Sciences Vs. C Parameshwara ” reported in ” (2005) 2 SCC 256 ” 11. Vs. Khushroo Rustom Dadyburjor ” reported in “ (2013) 4 SCC 333 ” . He has also cited another ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “ National Institute of mental health and Neuro Sciences Vs. C Parameshwara ” reported in ” (2005) 2 SCC 256 ” 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the meanwhile, the respondent No. 3 namely the owner of the suit land has moved an application before the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati for transferring the Title Suit No. 258/2022, Title Suit No. 713/2022 and Title Suit No. 17/2023 to a common Court so that there may not be any conflicting judgment in the aforesaid suits. He submits that the present petitioner does not have any objection to transferring of all the cases involving same suit land to a common Court so that there is no conflict of decisions in those cases. However, he submits that if the Title Suit No. 713/2022 is allowed to be stayed during the pendency of the Title Suit No. 258/2022, the present petitioner would be highly prejudiced as it will debar him from pursuing the alternative remedy of refund of the advance money which the power of attorney holder have already admitted accepting in their written statement filed by them i.e., Title Suit No. 258/2022. 12. On the other hand, Mr. A. K Jain, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity and does not warrant any interference by this Court. He submits that the power of attorney No. 908 dated 26.02.2020 was made by the respondent No. 1 & 2 of this case, namely, Khairul Hussain and Md. Raju Ali by fraudulently obtaining the signatures of the present respondent No. 3 thereon. He submits that the said power of attorney has already been cancelled by the defendant No. 3 by executing a cancellation deed No. 3109 dated 06.11.2020. He also submits that since the aforesaid deed of cancellation is put to challenge by the power of attorney holder in the Title Suit No. 258/2022 and the same has also been challenged in the Title Suit No. 713/2022 by the present petitioner. He also submits that since the aforesaid deed of cancellation is put to challenge by the power of attorney holder in the Title Suit No. 258/2022 and the same has also been challenged in the Title Suit No. 713/2022 by the present petitioner. The subject matters of both the suits are same and the outcome of the Title Suit No. 258/2022 is going to affect the outcome of Title Suit No. 713/2022. Hence, he submits that unless the subsequent suit is stayed, there may be conflict of decisions over the same issue by two different Courts. 13. However, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has submitted that since the operation of impugned order was stayed by this Court by its order dated 08.05.2024 and since the proceeding of Title Suit No. 713/2022 is going on in its normal course, the respondent No. 3 had preferred an application before the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati for transferring both the cases i.e. Title Suit No. 258/2022 and Title Suit No. 713/2022 to the same Court. He submits that if the said transfer petition is allowed and the all the cases are tried by a single Court, he may not have any objection on vacation of the stay granted by the impugned order on further proceeding of Title Suit No. 713/2022. 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides. I have also gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 15. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Trial Court held that the entire subject matter of the Title Suit No. 713/2022 is same as the subject matter of the Title Suit No. 258/2022. The Trial Court came to this finding on the basis of the fact that in both the suits, the prayer for cancellation of deed of revocation bearing deed No. 3109 dated 06.11.2020 has been made. The Trial Court came to this finding on the basis of the fact that in both the suits, the prayer for cancellation of deed of revocation bearing deed No. 3109 dated 06.11.2020 has been made. However, it appears that the Trial Court failed to take into consideration that whereas in Title Suit No. 258/2022, the main relief is with regard to the cancellation of deed No. 3109 dated 06.11.2020 as well as for a declaration that the present respondent No. 3 is not entitled to cancellation of power of attorney No. 908 and for a declaration that the cancellation deed No. 3109 dated 06.11.2020 is illegal, null and void and not binding on present respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Whereas, in the Title Suit No. 713/2022, apart from the aforesaid relief of cancellation of the deed of revocation/cancellation No. 3109 dated 06.11.2020, the other relief like specific performance of agreement dated 05.03.2020 was also prayed for and in alternative a relief of refund of the advance consideration amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) was also prayed for. 16. For applicability of Section 10 in a subsequently instituted suit, the fundamental test is whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in subsequent suit or not. 17. The Apex Court has observed in the case of “ National Institute of mental health and Neuro Sciences Vs. C Parameshwara ” (supra) that Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter in both the suits are identical. The key words in Section 10 are “the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue” in previous instituted suit. The words directly and substantially in issue are used in contradistinction extension 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 of both the proceedings is identical. 18. The words directly and substantially in issue are used in contradistinction extension 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 of both the proceedings is identical. 18. However, in the instant case, merely by looking at the prayer portion of the Title Suit No. 713/2022, it appears that the relief claimed in the said suit is more than what has been claimed by the plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 258/2022.The relief of specific performance of agreement dated 05.03.2020 has not been claimed in Title Suit No. 258/2022. Moreover, the alternative relief of refund of the advance consideration amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs) together with interest and compensation has also not been claimed in Title Suit No. 258/2022. Hence, it is clear that the whole of the subject matter in the subsequently instituted suit i.e., Title Suit No. 713/2022 is not the subject matter of the previously instituted suit i.e., Title Suit No. 258/2022. This Court is, therefore, of considered opinion that the provision of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has no applicability in Title Suit No. 713/2022 vis-à-vis Title Suit No. 258/2022. The Trial Court had erred in holding that the Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is attracted in Title Suit No. 713/2022. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and same is accordingly done hereby. 19. It appears from the materials on record that at present 3 (three) different suits are pending in respect of the same suit land in different Courts. Out of those three suits, the Title Suit No. 404/2019 has already been decreed and the proceeding under Order 21 Rule 97, 99 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure [Misc.(J) Case No. 756/2023] is pending before the executing court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 3. Whereas, Title Suit No. 258/2022 and Title Suit No. 713/2022 are pending in different Courts. Though, this Court is of the opinion that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not attracted in the instant case, however, it would be convenient and would serve the ends of justice if all the three cases are tried by the same Court. Though, this Court is of the opinion that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not attracted in the instant case, however, it would be convenient and would serve the ends of justice if all the three cases are tried by the same Court. The learned District Judge, Kamrup(M) is, therefore, directed to transfer all the aforesaid three cases, namely, Misc.(J) Case No. 756/2023, Title Suit No. 258/2022 and Title Suit No. 713/2022 to one Court for disposal. 20. With the above observation, the instant Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. 21. Let a copy of this order be send to the learned District Judge, Kamrup(M) for compliance. 22. Send back the records which were requisitioned in connection with this revision petition.