Section 10 of the CPC aims to prevent simultaneous trials of parallel suits on the same matter, applicable only if the substantive issues are identical.

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. 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 couns