Honble SHARMA, J.–It is noteworthy that, while Sec. 11 CPC provides that no Court shall try any suit or issue etc. Section 10 CPC merely says that no Court shall proceed with he trial of any suit etc. It follows that the mere fact that one issue is common in the two suits, would not necessitate the stay of the subsequent suit. Although the words ``matter in suit cannot be held necessarily to mean the subject matter in dispute, it seems clear that they must mean the entire matter in controversy and not one of several issues in the case. Had the intention of the legislature been to widen the scope of Sec. 10 CPC so as to make it coextensive with Sec. 11 the language employed would have been identical.

(2). In the light of this settled legal position I proceed to adjudicate an interes- ting question regarding the interpretation of Sec. 10 CPC arises in this revision filed by the defendant petitioner (for short the defendant) against the order dated 28.9.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge No.6 Jaipur District whereby the application u/S. 10 CPC filed by him for staying the civil suit No. 77/96 was dismissed.

(3). A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice before I deal with the pivotal question, whether the proceedings of civil suit No. 77 of 1996 are liable to be stayed, pending the decision of S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 2/1991.

(4). Plaintiff non-petitioner Smt. Kamla Devi (for short the plaintiff) on 24.5.1976 instituted a suit against the defendant for possession with regard to pro- perty situated in Chowkri Gangapole Samod bearing Municipal No. 1368. Mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month were also claimed by the plaintiff was based on a will alleged to have been executed by the husband late Shri Deoki Nandan, in her favour on 9.11.1974. The defendant assailed the genuineness and the legality of the said will and pleaded that he was validly adopted by Deoki Nandan as early as on 2.5.1995 and was continuously residing in the suit property with Deoki Nandan since then. The building on the disputed land was constructed out of the ancestral funds and he himself contributed his own earnings in construction of the building.

(5). The court of Additional District Judge No.2 Jaipur City decreed the aforesaid suit vide decree and judgment dated 6.12.1990. The defendant preferred regu- lar first appeal against the decree and judgment. In the said appeal bearing No. S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 2/91, this Court on 22.2.1991 passed an interim order staying the dispossession of the defendant from the suit property, subject to his paying to the plaintiff or depositing in the trial Court the entire arrears of mesne profits and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month by 15th of every succeeding month. It was observed in the said order thus : ``It is made clear that this order would not affect the rights, if any, of the respondent decree holder to claim damages/mesne profits at a higher rate from any date after the decision of the suit.

(6). This court vide order dated 22.2.1991, listed S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 2/91 for hearing in due course.

(7). The plaintiff on 28.1.1992 instituted another suit for recovery of mesne profits against the defendant praying for a decree of sum of Rs. 11,000/- bearing the mesne profits from 22.2.1991 to 22.1.1992 and has further prayed for a decree of sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month till the date of possession of the suit property.

(8). The defendant submitted written statement challenging the maintainability of suit on the ground that until the appeal is decided, no decree as prayed for by the plaintiff could be granted. An application u/S. 10 CPC was also filed by the defendant on 15.2.1996, praying therein that the suit proceedings be stayed till the decision of aforesaid first appeal.

(9). The trial Court vide order dated 28.9.1996 rejected the said application. Against this order present action for filing the revision has been resorted to.

(10). It has been urged on be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document