The matter in issue in two suits must be directly and substantially the same in order to attract the provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

Application by way of Judge's summons under O. XIV, R. 8 of the Original Side Rules for stay of proceedings in C.S. No. 539 of 1989 pending disposal of the original Suit No. 9630 of 1986 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras.

2. The applicant is the defendant in the present suit. In his affidavit he states that the present suit No. 539 of 1989 has been instituted against him for the recovery of sums due in respect of the Housing loan granted to him. Plaintiff has also sought to foreclose the Housing Loan under the pretext that the defendant has left the plaintiff Organisation.

As per the plaint averments, cause of action for the above suit arises as this defendant has left the Organisation. Whereas the defendant has not left the Organisation. He is a permanent employee of the plaintiff-Corporation since 1972. He has filed O. S. No. 9630 of 1986 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras challenging notice of termination dated 1-10-1986 issued to him. The matter in issue in that suit is also directly and substantially in issue in the present action. Hence this application to stay the proceedings under S. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The respondent/ plaintiff pleads in the counter that the present suit it one for recovery of Housing Loan which was availed by the defendant and since his service was terminated and he left the Organisation without clearing the outstanding amount. The applicant has filed O. S. No. 9630 of 1986 against the present respondent in the City Civil Court. That suit has been dismissed and the applicant has preferred an appeal in A. S. No.138 of 1991 on the file of the City Civil Court. Since the matter in issue in the present suit is not directly and substantially in issue in that suit, there is no scope for staying the suit under S. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. In the reply affidavit the applicant/ defendant has assailed at length the averments in the counter affidavit.

5. The point for determination is whether the proceedings in C. S. No. 539 of 1989 on the file of this Court has to be stayed till the disposal of O. S. No. 9630 of 1986 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras.

6. The Point; - The present applicant R. Srinivasan was working as a Project Engineer (Chemical) in the respondent Company M/s. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited.

A reading of the plaint in the earlier suit would indicate that he has instituted that action for declaration that the notice of termination issued by the respondent Company on 1-10-l986 is illegal and that the enquiry proceedings initiated by the Company against him are illegal, void and opposed to public policy and that the Enquiry Officer cannot proceed with the enquiry and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondent Company from proceeding with the enquiry or action as contemplated by them. Whereas the present suit C. S. No. 539 of 1989 is by the Company against R. Srinivasan for recovery of Rs. 1, 54, 688.84 with interest on the allegation that a sum of Rs. 1, 08, 000 / - was advanced to the petitioner as Housing Loan to repay it within a period of 20 years or before retirement/ release of the petitioner from the services of the respondent - Company whichever is earlier and that so far the petitioner has paid only a sum of Rs, 14, 060/- towards discharge of that loan. In the written statement the applicant herein does not dispute the borrowing. The averments therein are to the effect that in O.S. No. 9630 of 1986 he has challenged the notice of termination dated 1-10-1986 and the Same was the subject matter of the suit in O.S. No. 9630 of 1986. Since that suit was dismissed he has preferred A.S. No.l38 of 1991 on the file of the City Civil Court Madras and the subject matter of that appeal was also the notice of termination dated 1-10-1986. There is no dispute that proceedings in appeal are only a continuation of the suit instituted in the first Court. The