Revision petitioner in this C.R.P. is the second defendant in O.S.811 of 1993 and petitioner in LA. 3082 of 1993. She filed a petition under Section 10 of the CPC for staying all further proceedings in the said suit till the disposal of O.S.106 of 1993 instituted by her. By the impugned order the learned Munsiff did not allow the prayer for stay; but allowed consolidation of the two suits. The said order is under challenge in this revision.

2. It is an admitted case that the subject matter in both the suits is the same. Defendants in O.S.106 of 1993 are the plaintiffs in O.S.811 of 1993. In that the plaintiff in O.S.106 of 1993 and her husband are the defendants. Thus the parties in both the suits are substantially the same particularly when according to the petitioner, the 2nd defendant has no independent claim and that he is looking after the property as her husband. Both the suits are for a decree of permanent injunction. The earlier instituted suit is O.S.106 of 1993. As noticed, the petition filed by the second defendant in O.S.811 of 1993 was to stay further proceedings in the said suit till the disposal of the earlier instituted suit O.S.106 of 1993.

3.Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that it is a case where all the ingredients of Section 10 of the CPC are satisfied and therefore the petition ought to have been allowed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petition itself is not maintainable, the conditions under section 10 CPC is not satisfied and he alternatively contended that the prayer in the petition is such that the-same cannot be entertained under Section 10 CPC. The prayer is to stay all further proceedings in the said suit whereas under Section 10 CPC only the trial of the suit can be stayed.

4. Before going into the merit of the argument, it will be convenient to understand the scope of Section 10 CPC. Under Section 10 CPC only the trial of the suit can be stayed and the conditions therein are: the issue in the earlier suit should be directly and substantially in issue in the subsequently instituted suit; the said suit must be between the same parties or their representatives, and there should be identify of title agitated in both the suits.

5. Here there is no dispute that the subject matter in both the suits are the same. Except that in O.S.811 of 1993 the husband of the petitioner also is made a party, the parties in both the suits also are the same. For the purpose of the operation of Section 10 CPC, it is not necessary that all the parties on either side should be the same in both the suits; it is enough if there is a substantial identity of the parties. From the averments in the affidavit, it is clear that there is substantial identity of the parties in both the suits.

6. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel inasmuch as copy of the plaint in O.S.106 of 1993 is not produced along with the petition, the petition is not maintainable and it is also his case that the petition is premature as no written statement is filed in O.S.811 of 1993. Learned counsel relied on the decision in S.K. Rungta & Co. v. Nawal Kishore (AIR 1964 Cal. 373) in support of his contention. In that decision it is held that though normally the court would not allow a party to move an application under S.10 CPC unless he has filed his written statement, the court would entertain the application for stay as he had annexed the copy of the plaint in the previously instituted suit. Reliance was also made in the decision in L.R. Singh v. H.D. Sharma (AIR 1964 Manipur 2) where also it is held that parties should have filed their written statement and that issues have already been framed. As is noticed, the decision in S. Krungata & Co.'s case (AIR 1964 Cal. 373) does not insist that the petition can be filed only after the issues are framed in both the suits. There, since the petitioner had produced copy of the plaint in the earlier instituted suit, the petition