Pandrang Row, J.

1. The simple point raised in this petition is whether the Subordinate Judge of Anantapur was bound as a matter of law under Section 10, Civil Procedure Code, to stay the trial of O.S. No. 22 of 1937 pending on his file in view of the earlier institution of another suit (O.S. No. 280 of 1936) on the file of the District Munsif of Tirupur.

2. The only point argued before me is that it is not necessary for the application of Section 10, Civil Procedure Code, that the Court in which the earlier suit was instituted should be competent to decide the subsequent suit which is to be stayed. On this point, I am of opinion that the weight of authority is against the contention of the petitioner. Even a grammatical construction of Section 10, Civil Procedure Code, as it stands, really does not support this view. The words "relief claimed" should, in my opinion, apply to the suit which is to be stayed and not to the earlier suit. This is the construction adopted in several decisions the effect of which is embodied in Mullas Commentary on Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code as follows : The third essential condition for stay under Section 10, Civil Procedure Code, is t