The conditions precedent for invoking Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not met where the subject-matter of the suit and the proceedings before another court or authority are not substantially the same and the other court or authority is not competent to grant the relief claimed in the suit.

( 1 ) BY this order I propose to dispose of I. A. 4625186 which has been filed by defendants 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of the suit on the allegation- that plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration to the effect E that plaintiff No. I is a validly renominated director of defendant No. 7-company and the plaintiffs have also filed petitions under Section 408 and Section 409 of the Companies Act before the Company Law Board on 25th April 1986 on identically similar pleadings as in the above suit and the two reliefs claimed in the said petitions before the Company Law Board are identically similar to the relief claimed in the above suit and as such the proceedings in this suit be stayed till further orders under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application is opposed on behalf of the plaintiffs on the ground that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application; to the facts of this case. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file and after giving my considered thought to the matter before me I have come to the following findings.

( 2 ) THIS application has been filed in this suit filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that plaintiff No. I is a validiv renominated director of defendant No. 7-company on the allegations that plaintiff No. I was a director of defendant No. 7 and at the annual general meeting held on 31st March 1986, he was to retire by rotation and was to be re-elected as director thereof being the sole representative of MRI grop and being in possession of majority support of other local Indian shareholders in the form of proxy but defendant No. 1 in conspiracy with defendants 2 to 4 and two other directors objected to the renomination of plaintiff No. 1 as director and defendant No. 1 with the support of his employee directors and other bogus share-holders had forged proceedings of the meeting in the minutes book which has cast a cloud on the right of plaintiff No. I and other plaintiffs and on the status and title of plaintiff No. 1.

( 3 ) SECTION 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under :

"no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue m a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between 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. ". . . . . . . . . Explanation.-The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does riot preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action. "this shows that in order to attract provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure it must be established that the issue in this suit and the proceedings pending before the Company Law Board are substantially the same and the Company Law Board has jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed and the two proceedings are between the same parties or their representatives and such parties are litigating in both these matters under the same title. It would be difficult to accept that the issue before the Company Law Board is substantially the same as is the matter in issue before this Court. It would similarly be difficult to accept that the relief claimed in this suit can be. granted by the Company Law Board. The defendant has filed aphotostat copy of the order dated 31st July 1986 of the Company Law-Board in the petitions moved by the plaintiffs against the defendants. Para 2 of the said order shows that "the application had been filed by Sh. T. L. Arora and 30 others under Sections 408, 409, 247 and 250 of the Companies Act requesting, inter alia, for appointment of di