The court clarified that S.10 CPC does not apply to cases where the court in which the first suit is instituted is not competent to grant the relief claimed in the subsequently instituted suit.

1. The respondents in I. A. No. 1755 of 1980 in p. S. No. 242 of 1977 are the revision petitioners. O. S. No. 242 of 1977 was instituted by the respondent herein for recovery of possession of items of properties described in the plaint schedule on the strength of plaintiff's title. The defendants in the suit who are the revision petitioners herein filed a written statement contending inter alia that they are tenants, in respect of suit properties, entitled to fixity of tenure under the Kerala Land Reforms Act (Act 1 of 1964), herein-after called 'the Act'. On the basis of the pleading, issues were framed in the trial court and one of the issues was whether the defendants are tenants entitled to fixity of tenure under the Act. The question raised under this issue whether defendants 2 and 3 are tenants entitled to fixity of tenure, was referred under S.125(3) of the Act, to the Land Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area for decision of the question. Accordingly, the reference was taken on file by the Land Tribunal in O. A. No. 9 of 1978. But prior to the institution of O. S. No. 242 of 1977, the Land Tribunal had initiated two suo mote proceedings S. M. 1317 of 1977 and S. M. 1319 of 1977 in respect of the same properties involved in the suit. In both, the suo mote proceedings mentioned above, defendants 2 and 3, the revision petitioners herein, contended that they are cultivating tenants entitled to fixity of tenure. The Land Tribunal jointly heard (O. A. 9/1978, S. M. 1317 of 1977 and S. M. 1319 of 1977) the above three proceedings and disposed them of by a common order holding that defendants 2 and 3 are cultivating tenants entitled to fixity of tenure. The Land Tribunal after deciding the question referred to it, returned the records back with its decision to the court of Addl. Sub. Judge, Palghat where O. S.242 of 1977 was pending trial. Thereafter, the landlord who is said to be plaintiff in O. S.242 of 1977 challenged the findings of the Land Tribunal in the two suo mote proceedings by preferring appeals A. A. T. 296 of 1980 and A. A. T. 297 of 1980 before the Appellate Authority and these appeals are now said to be pending.

2. The plaintiff, the respondent herein, then filed LA. 1755 of 1980 under S,10 of the C.P.C. for staying the suit O.S. 242 of 1977 on the ground that the two previously instituted proceedings are pending in A. A.T. Nos. 296 and 297 of 1980 before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and that there is every likelihood of conflict of decisions if those appeals are allowed and the finding in O.A. 9 of 1978 accepted and the suit disposed of accordingly.

3. The court below found that the decision of the Appellate Authority will operate as resjudicata in the suit and therefore when previously instituted proceedings before the Land Tribunal, where tenancy question was agitated, were pending, the subsequent suit instituted in court cannot be proceeded with and stayed O.S.242 of 1977 under S.10 of the C.P.C. till disposal of the two appeals pending before the Land Reforms Authority.

4. Attacking this order, Shri N. Viswanatha Iyer, learned advocate for the petitioner strongly contended that S.10 C.P.C. does not apply to the facts of this case, that the essential requirements therein are not satisfied in the case, that S.10 applies only to courts of concurrent jurisdiction, that even otherwise S.10 of the CPC. cannot apply to this case because of the overriding effect of S.125 of the Act, the provisions of which are mandatory, and that in a case where S.125 of the Act is applicable, S.10 CPC. has no application. It was also argued that when once a finding from the Land Tribunal is received, it is the duty of the court to accept the same and proceed as contemplated in the provisions in S.125 of the Act.

5. S.10 of the CPC. reads:

"10. Stay of Suit. No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted sui