1. This is an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 at the instance of the defendant-Bank seeking stay of the trial of the instant suit being C.S. No.266 of 2004 pending hearing of the previously instituted suit being C.S. No.129 of 1999. Although, voluminous argument and counter argument has been advanced on behalf of both the parties on the application and ultimate grant of stay based on averments made in the application, no substantial assistance could be rendered to decide real question on prayer for stay.

2. Scope here is very limited to adjudicate upon the application for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is attracted in the facts and circumstances disclosed in the application. Before going into the merits of the application vis-à-vis the prayer for stay of trial of the present suit it is necessary to compare the issues involved in the previously instituted suit being C.S. No.129 of 1999 and that of the present suit.

3. So far the present suit is concerned, issues have been framed and the order by which such issues were framed appears at page 71 (Annexure ‘E’) to this application. In the earlier suit being C.S. No.129 of 1999, the plaintiff has taken out an application for amendment, amendment has been allowed in part but is still pending in appeal. Unamended prayer of C.S No.129 of 1999 is as follows :

(a) “A declaration that the purported sales of the 4,98,000 shares of BFL Software Limited pledged by the plaintiff and of the other pledged shares mentioned in Annexure ‘I’ were and are void.

(b) A decree directing the defendant to unconditionally return the shares pledged with it by the plaintiff in respect of the said overdraft account, particulars whereof are set out in Annexure “D”; in default, a decree be passed against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.48,95,08,757.45/-representing the market price of the said shares on the date of the defendant’s refusal to return the said shares on February 17, 1999. Alternatively an enquiry be made to determine the market value of the said shares or with reference to such other date as to this Hon’ble Court may seem fit and proper; and a decree be passed for the value of the shares as determined by this Hon’ble Court.

(c) Declaration that no sum is payable by the plaintiff to the defendant in respect of the said term loan account dated July 27, 1994, and the said overdraft account dated September 19, 1995 and that the defendant is not entitled to a decree for a sum of Rs.8,62,41,973.37/- or any part thereof against the plaintiff in respect of the said two accounts.

(d) In the alternative an enquiry be made into and accounts be taken of the dealings and transactions between the parties relating to the term loan account dated July 27, 1994, and overdraft account dated September 19, 1995 for determination of the amount, if any, lawfully payable by the plaintiff to the defendant, and a decree of redemption in favour of the plaintiff be passed against the defendant directing the defendant to return the title deeds mentioned in Annexure ‘B’ and the pledged shares mentioned in Annexure ‘D’ upon/or against payment by the plaintiff of the amount lawfully adjudged to be due to the defendant in respect of the said two accounts.

(e) Injunction.

(f) Receiver.

(g) Costs.

(h) Further or other reliefs.”

4. After amendment of the plaint in C.S. No.129 of 1999, the prayers are as follows :

(a) “A declaration that the purported sales of the 4,98,000 shares of BFL Software Limited pledged by the Plaintiff and of the other pledged shares mentioned in Annexure ‘I’ were and are void.

(b) A decree directing the Defendant to unconditionally return the shares pledged with it by the plaintiff in respect of the said overdraft account, as also accruals thereto, particulars whereof are set out in Annexure ‘I’ hereto as emended; in default, a decree be passed, against the Defendant in favour of