( 1 ) PLAINTIFF sued the defts. on 3. 6. 75 at 10 a. m. for declaration and injunction. Some of the defts. filed somewhat similar suit at Patna on same day at 7 a. m. as during summer, Courts there started earlier. Plaintiff at Delhi amended the plaint on 4. 8. 75. Deft 4 etc. filed applications u/s 10, CPC, for stay of suit. The order after giving above parts is para 4 onwards :

( 2 ) THE applications were opposed by the plaintiff who urged, inter alia, that the applications did not lie because the applicants had not yet filed their written-statements, the suit pending at Patna was not a previously instituted suit; the parties in the two suits were not the same; the court at Patna did not have the jurisdiction to grant the relief asked for here; the principal relief sought through the Delhi suit was not covered by suit at Patna, none of the contesting defendants reside at Patna and the mere fact that the defendants supporting the plaintiff are residents of Patna was not sufficient to give jurisdiction to that court; the cause of action for the Patna suit arose either at Lucknow or at Jaipur where the disputed meetings are alleged to have been held and the Patna court cou