The matter in issue in both suits must be directly and substantially the same in order to attract Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from an order dated November 9, 1970, staying the suit filed in this Court under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of an earlier suit filed by the respondents against the appellant in the Court of Civil Judge, Ferrukhabad, being Civil Suit No. 61 of 1969.

( 2 ) THE respondent firm was appointed by the appellant as its dealer to sell certain goods in the district of Ferrukhabad. The respondents' case in the Ferrukhabad suit is that the said dealership agreement was cancelled by mutual agreement and thereafter certain transactions were entered into between the parties and in respect of those post contract transactions the respondents became entitled to certain sums of money from the appellant, which sums the respondent is seeking to recover in that suit.

( 3 ) THE defence of the appellant in that suit is that, though some new arrangements were entered into between the parties, the respondents are not entitled to receive any money from the appellant. It has also been denied in that written statement that the dealership agreement was terminated by mutual consent as alleged by the respondents in, that plaint. It has further been pleaded by the appellant in that suit that the respondents have wrongfully repudiated the said dealership agreement and the said wrongful repudiation was accepted by the appellant.

( 4 ) DURING the pendency of the Ferrukhabad suit, the appellant has filed this suit No. 3661 of 1969 in this Court claiming damages for wrongful repudiation of the dealership agreement by the respondents and the acceptance of such wrongful repudiation by the appellant resulting in the damages suffered by the appellant with an additional claim arising out of the new arrangements pleaded by the respondents in the Ferrukhabad suit.

( 5 ) IN these circumstances, the respondents have made the application under Section 10 of the Code and it was allowed by the learned Judge, who has, inter alia, said as follows :"the main issue in both the suits are common, namely, what the terms of the contract of dealership between the parties are and who has committed the breach of the said dealership agreement, and though apart from that issue the subject-matters in both the suits are different, and yet the result in both the suits will depend mainly on the decision of the issue as to who committed default of the dealership contract between the parties. "

( 6 ) IN staying the suit the learned Judge followed a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shorab Merwanji Modi v. Mansata Film Distributors reported in to which reference will be made later on.

( 7 ) IN support of this appeal it has been contended by Mr. Somenatb Chatterjee, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the field of controversy in both the suits are entirely different, because the Ferrukhabad suit is founded upon a new arrangement entered into between the parties after the dealership agreement came to an end; whereas the Calcutta suit is based on the breach of contract.

( 8 ) THE contention of Mr. Bachawat, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, is that the field of controversy between the parties is substantially the same in both the suits. He has argued that it does not matter whether Ferrukhabad suit is on the new arrangement or Calcutta suit is on the dealership agreement, in view of the decision of Chakaravartti, C. J. in the case already cited. He has also drawn our attention to another Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Arun General Industries Ltd. v. Rishabh Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. , in support of his contention that if the principal issue in both the suits is the same, it must be held that the matters in issue in both the suits are primarily and substantially the same.

( 9 ) WE have already stated the nature of pleadings in the Ferrukhabad suit. In the Calcutta suit the respondents have not yet filed any written statement, but we may assume that their defe