These civil revision petitions raise interesting question of law. The point that would arise for consideration is whether an interim order directing stay of all further proceedings passed by the appellate Court in appeal or by the revisional Court in revision, operates as stay in considering the interlocutory application filed in the trial Court or bars only from proceeding with the trial of the suit.

2. The petitioners in these revision petitions are plaintiffs in suit OS No.108 of 2014 (old OS No.49 of 2003). The petitioners filed IA Nos.56, 57, 58, 59, 60 & 61 of 2017, respectively, in suit OS No. 108 of 2014, under Order 13, Rule 9, r/w. Section 151 CPC seeking return of original registered sale deeds filed by them to avail bank loans. The trial Court by the impugned orders, dismissed the interlocutory applications on the ground that this Court in CRP No.359 of 2008, dated 08-02-2008 allowed IA No.45 of 2006 filed by the petitioners herein, in the instant suit OS No.49 of 2003, granted stay of all further proceedings of the suit, till disposal of the appeal being AS No.62 of 2004. Hence these civil revision petitions.

3. Sri E.V.V.S Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the order of stay of suit passed in an application filed under Section 10 of CPC operates only in respect of further trial of the suit and there is no bar to consider the interlocutory applications to meet the ends of justice. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision rendered by Kerala High Court in V.R. BALAKRISHNAN NADAR vs. R. VELAYUDHAN NADAR AIR 1980 KERALA 161. Though notice is served, none appeared for the respondents.

4. The trial Court dismissed the interlocutory applications purportedly on the ground that passing any orders thereon would amount to conducting proceedings of the suit, which is stayed by this Court in CRP No.359 of 2008. This Court granted stay in the said revision petition at the instance of the petitioners herein in the present suit OS No.108 of 2014 (Old OS No.49 of 2003) having persuaded by the fact that suit OS No.26 of 1997, which was filed for declaration of title and injunction, the suit property therein and the suit property in the present suit being same, observed that the present suit OS No.108 of 2014 (Old OS No.49 of 2003) will have to await the decision in appeal AS No.62 of 2004 pending on the file of this Court, which was filed against the judgment and decree in suit OS No.26 of 1997.

5. It is trite to reproduce Section 10 CPC, which reads as under:-

“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.”

6. From a plain reading of the above provision, it is understood that Section 10 requires that a suit must be stayed if the matter directly and substantially in issue in it is also directly and substantially in issue in a previous suit that is pending. The criterion for deciding whether the subsequent suit be stayed or not is whether there is identity of the matters directly and substantially in issue in the two suits, if there is, the subsequent suit must be stayed and if there is not, it will not be stayed. The object of this provision is to prevent two Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. It is to obviate conflict of decisions of two contra