The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, which aims to prevent concurrent courts from trying parallel suits between the same parties on the same matter, to avoid contradictory verdicts and protect the defendant from multiple proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the husband takes exception to the order passed by learned Additional District Judge-1, Solan on 14.1.2016 whereby his application under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code’) for staying the proceedings has come to be dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition may be noticed. The proceedings pending before the learned trial Court (Additional District Judge-1, Solan) have been instituted by the respondent under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'Act’) wherein the petitioner moved application under Section 10 of CPC on the ground that earlier petition instituted by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Act was already pending adjudication before the learned District Judge, Shimla. The respondent had not only put in appearance, but had also raised similar plea regarding impotency of the petitioner and had further raised certain other contentions, which were similar to the one set out in the present petition.

3. It was further averred that the relief sought by the respondent in the impugned proceedings pending before the Court at Solan had already been sought by her in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act pending before the learned District Judge, Shimla. Therefore, she could not be allowed to set up same ground in two different proceedings pending before the two Courts of competent jurisdiction on the same cause of action. It was further averred that the findings in one petition would operate as resjudicata in another proceeding and in case both the proceedings are allowed to continue, then there is every likelihood of contradictory findings, being recorded by the two Courts on the same matter.

4. The learned Court below dismissed the application by holding that the provision of Section 10 of CPC would not be applicable to the present case as the necessary ingredients of the Section were not attracted in the present case.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

5. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads thus :

“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 suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating undr the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.

Explanation. – The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.”

6. The object of Section 10 CPC is to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits between the same parties in respect of the same matter in issue. The fundamental test to attract Section 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, the same would operate as res-judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter in both the suits is identical. The key words in Section 10 are "the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue" in the previous instituted suit. The words "directly and substantially in issue" are used in contradistinction to the words "incidentally or collaterally in issue". Therefore, Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of the matter in issue in both the suits, meaning thereby, that the whole of subject matter in both the proceedings is identical.

7. The mere common grounds in the previous suit and subsequent suit would not attract the Section 10. The basic purpose and underlying object of Section 10 of the Code