The court clarified the application of Section 10 of CPC, emphasizing that only substantively identical issues warrant a stay to prevent parallel proceedings.

ORDER :

S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 25.07.2018 passed on IA No.5 in O.S.No.6942/2011 by the Court of XLIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. O.S.No.6942/2011 was filed before the jurisdictional Civil Court at Bengaluru by the petitioner herein with a prayer to direct the defendants jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.2,33,17,790/- with current and future interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation. The contesting defendants have filed written statement and opposed the suit claim. IA No.5 was filed by defendant No.6 in O.S.No.6942/2011 under Section 10 read with Section 151 of CPC, with a prayer to stay the further proceedings in O.S.No.6942/2011 till the disposal of RFA No.1025/2014 pending before this Court. The said application was opposed by the petitioner/plaintiff by filing objections. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has allowed IA No.5 and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner/plaintiff is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that issues raised in O.S.No.6942/2011 and in O.S.No.3290/2009 are totally different. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. Petitioner had earlier filed an application to club the suits in O.S.No.3290/2009 and O.S.No.6942/2011 and the said application was opposed by defendant No.6 and consequently, the application was rejected. Since the application filed by the petitioner herein to club both the suits was rejected, there is no justification in now staying the further proceedings in O.S.No.6942/2011 at the request of defendant No.6, who had earlier opposed clubbing of the two cases. Though both the suits are for recovery of money, the cause of action in both the suits are different. The application filed under Section 10 of CPC is after disposal of O.S.No.3290/2009 and therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have allowed the same. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad Singh vs. Col.Sukhdev Singh - (1987) 1 SCC 727.

5. He further submits that similar application was earlier filed on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 5, which was rejected by the Trial Court on 08.08.2013. The principle of res judicata would apply even in respect of orders passed in a pending proceedings and therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in passing the order impugned. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Gokulam Farms and Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs.Muneer Pasha - 2007 SCC OnLine Kar 810.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.6/defendant No.6 has argued in support of the impugned order. She submits that issue Nos.2 and 4 in O.S.No.6942/2011 and additional issue No.4 in O.S.No.3290/2009 are one and the same. Challenging the finding recorded on issue No.4 in O.S.No.3290/2009, the parties are before this Court in RFA No.1025/2014 and RFA No.1067/2014, which are pending consideration. The appeal is continuation of the suit and Section 10 of CPC is applicable even at the appeal stage. She submits that a finding has been recorded in the earlier suit that there was no collusion between the plaintiff and defendant No.3 in O.S.No.3290/2009. She submits that the earlier application filed on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 5 was rejected at the stage when evidence was being recorded on the ground that