( 1 ) CHALLENGING the order dated 12-8-2004 in I. A. No. 1 of 2004 in O. S. No. 27 of 2003 on the file of Senior Civil judge, Adilabad, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

( 2 ) ORIGINALLY, the respondent herein filed a suit in O. S. No. 27 of 2003 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,20,196/- with interest and the petitioner herein is disputing the suit on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Earlier, the petitioner herein also filed a suit in O. S. No. 83i of 2003 on the file of ii Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,88,6 11/- and the said suit is pending. According to the petitioner, the present suit in O. S. No. 27 of 2003 is filed as a counterblast to the suit in o. S. No. 831 of 2003. While so, the petitioner herein filed an application under section 10 read with Section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure (for brevity cpc ) to stay the O. S. No. 27 of 2003 in view of the pendency of earlier suit in O. S. No. 831 of 2003 on the file of II Additional subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The Court below after considering the evidence available on record dismissed the said application on merits.

( 3 ) THE respondent therein filed the counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition under Section 10 of the CPC. The deponent is not the director of the firm. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,20,196/- as the goods were supplied as per invoice and it is the subject-matter of the Court below and that Section 10 of the cpc has no application.

( 4 ) BASED on the material available on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the subject- matter in both the suits is different and therefore, the present petition filed under section 10 of the CPC is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed. Challenging the same the present civil revision petition.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the dispute made by both the parties in both the suits is relating to the supply/non-supply of cotton in the month of July, 2002 by the respondent herein. Since the petitioner has instituted the suit prior to the institution of the suit filed by the respondent herein, the proceedings in O. S. No. 27 of 2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad have to be stayed. He further contended that in both the suits parties are same and the issues also directly or substantially are one and the same and hence, he prays to allow the revision petition.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the issue involved in both the suits is not one and the same as O. S. No. 27 of 2003 was filed with regard to the recovery of balance amount from the defendant. Whereas O. S. No. 831 of 2003 was filed with regard to the damages along with breach of contract and hence, there is no error of law apparent on the face of the record so as to calling interference by this court.

( 7 ) AS seen from the record, O. S. No. 831 of 2003 is filed before the ii Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, by the petitioner herein for the loss suffered by them only due to the breach of contract and non-supply of cotton by the defendants therein as agreed. Therefore, the defendants therein are liable for loss caused to the plaintiff therein. Whereas O. S. No. 27 of2003 is filed by the respondent herein for recovery of Rs. 1,20,196/- towards the supply of goods as per the invoice.

( 8 ) SECTION 10 of the CPC which provides that where a suit is instituted in a court to which the provisions of the Code applies, the Court will not proceed with the trial of the suit, in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, and that the Court in which the previous suit is pending is competent to grant the relief claimed. The underlying object of the Rule contained in section 10 of the CPC is to prevent the