This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 18.04.2011, in I.A.No.162 of 2011 in O.S.No.29 of 2008, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur.

2. The petitioner is one of the defendants in O.S.No.49 of 2005 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. While the said suit was pending, the petitioner filed O.S.No.29 of 2008 in the same Court for permanent injunction against the respondents. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed I.A.No.162 of 2011 under Section 10 r/w Section 151 CPC for stay of O.S.No.29 of 2008 on the ground that the issues raised therein are directly and substantially in issue in the suit filed by them. The lower Court has allowed the said application by order, dated 18.04.2011, and stayed the suit along with the IAs filed therein. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition.

3. At the hearing, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, candidly conceded that while the order of the Court below to the extent of staying the suit may be in consonance with the provisions of Section 10 CPC, stay of interlocutory applications filed in O.S.No.29 of 2008 is contrary to the provisions of Section 10 CPC as interpreted by various judicial pronouncements. In support of this submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited (AIR 1998 SC 1952).

4. Sri I.Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents, seriously opposed the above submission.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Section 10 of 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.”

7. In Indian Bank (supra), the Supreme Court has considered precisely the question which has arisen in this case. While holding that in legal parlance, the word ‘trial’ means a judicial examination and determination of the issue and it has got the widest meaning to include all the proceedings right from the stage of institution of a plaint in a civil case to the stage of final determination by a judgment and decree of the Court, it has, however, held that in the context in which the said word is used in Section 10, the same needs to be interpreted in a narrow sense. It is instructive to reproduce the relevant para of the judgment as under:

“Therefore, the word “trial” in Section 10 will have to be interpreted and construed keeping in mind the object and nature of that provision and the prohibition to ‘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.’ The object of the prohibition contained in Section 10 is to prevent the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits and also to avoid inconsistent findings on the matters in issue. The provision is in the nature of a rule of procedure and does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and deal with the later suit nor does it create any substantive right in the matters. It is not a bar to the institution of a suit. It has been construed by the Court as not a bar of the passing of interlocutory orders such as an order for consolidation of the later suit with the earlier suit or appointment of a Receiver or an injunction or attachment before judgment. The course of action which the Court