The conditions for stay of a suit under Section 10, CPC are: (a) the matters in issue should be substantially the same in the two suits; (b) the previously instituted suit should be pending in the same court 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 the parties should be litigating in the two suits under the same title.

( 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 could not, therefore, entertain the suit; though the Divine Light Mission was registered at Patna its headquarters from the very beginning had been at Delhi and it was registered as a society at Delhi as well before the present suit arose with the object of transferring even the nominal registered office to this place.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the parties have addressed arguments only on the points which they thought to be crucial for the purpose of stay of the instant suit. For instance the matter of jurisdiction of Patna Sub-Judge has not been canvassed before me for the reason it is awaiting decision of Patna High Court. The issue of jurisdiction of this Court in respect of the present case has not in the same manner been taken up because the defendants have yet to file their written-statements. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the opposite parties plea as to the stay of the suit cannot be entertained unless and until they file their written-statements. An application u/s 10, Civil Procedure Code cannot, I must concede, be disposed of without the court being clear as to what are the matters in issue in the two suits and the filing of the written-statement is, with that end in view, usually insisted upon. But a certified copy of the Patna plaint has been produced by the applicants and its persual along with the plaint of the instant suit brings in full focus all the issues at which the parties are in conflict. It will be useless in this situation to put off the consideration of the relevant applications till all the parties to the suit have placed their pleadings on the record. The case reported in M/s. Rup Chanddharma Chand v. M/s. Basani Lal Banarsi Lal, (A. I. R. 1975 Punjab and Haryana 171) furnishes a pertinent instance where in similar circumstances filing of the written-statement was found to be unnecessary.

( 4 ) THE next question that falls for determination is whether the Patna suit is the previously instituted suit. According to the applicants the suit was filed in the court of Sub-Judge II on 28. 5. 1975 but it was returned for presentation to Sub-Judge I because of allocation of work amongst different judicial officers there. The courts at Patna, they have urged, were observing summer hours at that time and the plaint was re-presented to Sub- Judge I at 7 a. m. Vide Rule 10 (2) of Order 7 of the Civil Procedure Code when a plaint is returned the judge endorses on the same the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it. The copy of the Patna plaint filed in these proceedings does not bear any such endorsement. Rather, the verification at the foot thereof carries date 3. 6. 1975. It has been admitted at the Bar that after the retur