( 1 ) SECTION 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads : -

"10. Stay of suit - No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in (India) having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of (India) established or continued by (the Central Government (***) and having like jurisdiction, or before (the supreme Court ). "

( 2 ). The ingredients of the same have been elucidated by this court in the case of C. L. Tandon vs. Prem Pal singh AIR 1978 Delhi 221 to be :-

" (A) The matter/matters in issue should be substantially the same in the two suits; (b) The previously instituted suit should be pending in the same Court in which the subsequent suit is brought or in another court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed: and (c) The two suits should be between the same parties or their representatives and these parties should be litigating in the two suits under the same title. "

( 3 ). It is these principles that are being pressed besides Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the facts of the case.

( 4 ). M/s Maxwell Securities Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter described as the plaintiff) had filed a civil suit for a declaration and permanent injunction for declaring that all decisions and action and conduct of the defendants (National Stock Exchange of india Ltd and Ors.) including the issuance of the circular dated 17/4/1997 and the letter of 26/6/1997 interfering with the rights of the plaintiff and restraining the free dealings of the share in the suits are arbitrary, capricious and illegal and for restraining the defendants from taking any other or further action on basis thereof. It has been alleged that plaintiff is a trading and clearing member of the defendants since October 1995. The plaintiff had delivered a number of shares of Reliance industries and of the State Bank of India in settlement no. 1997011 out of which 81,000 shares of state Bank of India and 1100 shares of Reliance industries were returned by the defendants to the plaintiff on 31/3/1997 for rectification of the bad delivery. It is the case of the defendants that defendant no. 2 was empowered to buy shares from the market and honour delivery commitments of the plaintiff in respect of the shares in suit. The defendants issued a circular on 4th March, 1977 according to which defendant no. 2 may initiate a buy in auction on Wednesday immediately following the end of the trading period, if the value of the short sales at the end of the trading period resulting in terms of obligation to deliver, valid at Tuesday closing price plus 15% is greater than funds buy out available with the clearing corporation. This facility to initiate and an early buy is available also to the clearing members on their specific request to the defendants on 1/4/1997 to initiate an early buy in recording the shares in question. It is the case of the defendants that they did not buy requisite shares from the market to honour the delivery commitments in respect of the shares in the suit and debited the account of the plaintiff in this regard. Despite that the defendants still issued a circular in April 1997 interfering in the rights of the plaintiff and restraining the free dealings of the shares in the suit. The plaintiff did make a specific request and on the aforesaid defendant no. 2 bought the requested shares from the market on the basis of said specific- request of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff came to know he requested the defendants on 1/4/1997 to initiate an early buy in regarding the shares in the suit. It is asserted that defendants are interfering in the rights of the plaintiff and are creating obstacles and hindrances in the plaintiffs deali