For a stay of a subsequent suit under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, the matter in issue in the earlier and subsequent suits must be directly and substantially the same.

1. This is a plaintiffs application against an order dated 12-10-82 by which the court below has stayed further proceedings in Title Suit No. 13 of 1981 till the disposal of First Appeal No. 424 of 1982 pending in this Court.

2. Defendant No. 2 had filed Title Suit No. 48 of 1980 in the court of Additional Sub. Judge I, against the present plaintiff-petitioners and the original owner of the house in question through whom the defendant No. 2 (plaintiff in Title Suit 48 of 1980) and the present plaintiff-petitioner claim title in the subject matter. Title Suit 48 of 1980 filed by defendant No. 2 was a suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of baibeyana. That title suit which was filed earlier was dismissed. The plaintiff of that suit (defendant No. 2 in the present suit) has preferred First Appeal 424 of 1982 in this Court which is pending.

3. The present plaintiffs-petitioners filed Title Suit 13 of 1981 and admittedly this was a subsequent suit. This suit filed by the petitioners is against defendants-opposite party and the petitioners had prayed for eviction of the defendants on the ground of arrears of rent and also on the ground of personal necessity. The plaintiffs-petitioners claim to have purchased the house in question through two registered sale deeds dated 20-5-80 from one Paras Nath, the original owner of the house. The defendants-opposite party were already there in the house as tenants from before the purchase by the petitioners of the house in question. The petitioners case in the present suit is that by purchase of the house the petitioners became the landlords and as they needed the house for their personal necessity and as the defendants-opposite-party defaulted in payment of rent, the petitioners were compelled to file the instant suit, as the defendants-opposite-party did not vacate the suit premises

4. The defendants-opposite-party filed a petition in the present suit (Title Suit 13 of 1981) filed by the petitioners under Sec.10 read with Sec.151 of the Civil P. C., stating therein that the title of the plaintiffs-petitioners in Title Suit 13 of 1981 is a matter in issue directly and substantially in Title Suit 48 of 1980 filed by defendant No. 2 (dismissed by the trial court and first appeal pending in this Court). The defendants-opposite-party in their application also stated that the parties were the same claiming title from the same vendor and that the decision in the former suit will operate as res judicata in the present suit. In those circumstances the defendants-opposite-party prayed for the stay of the subsequent suit. i.e., stay of further proceedings in Title Suit 13 of 1981 filed by the present plaintiffs-petitioners.

5. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a rejoinder to the aforesaid application of the defendants. The present petitioners also filed another application contending that the application filed by the defendants-opposite-party has become infructuous as the earlier Title Suit 48 of 1980 filed by defendant No. 2 had already been dismissed by the trial court on 30-6-82. To this application filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners the defendants-opposite-party also filed a rejoinder.

6. The court below has held that the subject matter of both the suits is the same and that the matter in issue of both the suits are also substantially the same and in that view of the matter the application filed by the defendants-opposite-party for the stay of Title Suit 13 of 1981 was allowed. As against that order the present plaintiffs-petitioners have moved this Court in the instant application.

7. As already stated above, the earlier suit filed by defendant No. 2 (Title Suit 48 of 1980), which was dismissed by the trial court on 30-6-82 and as against which the defendant No. 2 has filed First Appeal 424 of 1982 and which is still pending disposal in this Court, is only a suit for specific performance of contract against the original owner. It is true that the present plaintiff is also a