( 1 ) THE petitioner in this revision challenges the order dt. 2. 9. 81 of the Sub Judge, Delhi refusing to stay u/s 10 of the Code of civil procedure (for short, the Code) the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff. Briefly the facts are that the respondent M/s. Ganda Ram and Co. Delhi on 29-10-80 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 8301. 15 against the petitioner Laxmi Fruit Co. , Mandi Dabwali alleging that the petitioner agreed to purchase fruits and vegetables from time to time and agreed to pay commission on net sale proceeds. The respondent alleges that he despatched goods of Rs. 4,09,499. 22 and regularly sent Beejaks to the petitioner, that the said sum consists of purchase price of the goods i. e. fruits and vegetables, expenses incurred and commission) that the respondent received Rs. 4,02,324. 07 thus leaving a balance of Rs. 7,175. 15 which the petitioner failed to pay inspite of repeated demands. The respondent claims interest Rs. 1126. 00 @15% p. a. In this way a total sum of Rs. 8,301. 15 is claimed against the petitioner. The respondent further alleges that the statement of account in respect of all the transactions was sent which was confirmed by petitioner and vide letter dt. 26. 9. 79 petitioner asked the respondent to recover amounts from others on behalf of the petitioner, that a sum of Rs. 7,163. 66 alleged to be due from Sidi Wale Delhi could not be recovered and therefore; the amount in suit is due from the petitioner.

( 2 ) IN his w/s dt. 17. 7. 81 petitioner alleges that the suit could not proceed as the petitioner had earlier on 19. 8. 80 filed a suit for rendition of accounts in the Court of Sub Judge, Dabwali against the respondent, that the matters in dispute in the suit at Delhi were directly and substantially in issue in the earlier suit between the parties pending at Dabwali. On merits the petitioner submits that the account of the various purchases by the respondent was never rendered, that no accounts were ever confirmed by the petitioner, that the respondent was liable to submit the original bills for the purchases made, that the respondent has debited exaggerated amounts allegedly paid on behelf of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed an application u/s 10 of the Code for stay of the proceedings in the suit at Delhi.

( 3 ) THE trial Court refused stay on the ground that the two suits were based on different causes of action as the suit instituted by the petitioner at Dabwali was for rendition of accounts while the suit instituted subsequently by the respondent for recovery at Delhi was on the basis of a settled account.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit at Dabwali was file. 1 on 19-8-89 for rendition of accounts while the suit for recovery was filed at Delhi by the respondent on 20-10-80. He submits that matter in issue in the suit at Delhi is : whether the accounts between the parties were settled as alleged by the respondent ? He further submits that the respondent in the w/s dt. 3-4-81 in reply to the suit at Dabwali has alleged that the accounts between the parties were settled on the basis of the alleged writing dt. 26-9-79 by the petitioner, that the suit at Dabwali was liable to be stayed as the suit relatin? to the same subject matter between the parties was pending at Delhi. The petitioner alleges that the accounts of agency were never rendered by the respondent while the respondent alleges that the accounts were settled between the parties. Thus if the respondent succeeds in proving that the accounts were settled the petitioner s suit at Dabwali may fail and consequently the respondent may be entitled to a decree for money againt the petitioner in the suit at Delhi. In case it is held that the accounts were not rendered, the respondent may be directed to render accounts in the suit at Dabwali and the respondent will have to prove the various allegations contained in the suit at Delhi. Thus the substantial issue in the suit at Delh