ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order passed by the Trial Court under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure staying the suit.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.233 of 2013 seeking to declare him alone as an absolute owner of the property described in the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction. The respondents/defendants filed IA No. 15 of 2014 under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking the stay the suit on the ground that the respondent had already filed a suit in O.S.No.102 of 2011 against the plaintiff and others before the same Court for declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction in respect of the very same property and the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 20.09.2012 and against the judgment and decree he had filed an appeal in A.S.No. 9 of 2013 before the Sub Court, Madurai and the said appeal was allowed by the Principal Sub Court by setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and they have enclosed a copy of the decree and judgment. Subsequently the plaintiff has filed a second appeal in S.A(MD) No. 591 of 2013 before the High Court and the same is pending. The respondents/defendants had further contended that the matter in issue which has to be decided and the parties in the present suit are one and the same as in the previous suit in O.S.No.102 of 2011 which is now pending in the appellate Court in S.A(MD).No. 591 of 2013, thereby contending that the suit was affected by principles of subjudice had filed a petition seeking for stay. The respondent had filed counter and contended that the suit scheduled properties, parties to the suit are different and that the matter in dispute was also not one and the same. The Trial Court by order dated 01.09.2014 allowed the petition against which the present revision has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 233 of 2013 and the first defendant in O.S.No.102 of 2011. The other defendants in O.S.No. 102 of 2011 are the government officials. The schedule of properties and the parties involved in the suit are different and the issue involved in the suit is also different. He would further submit that to attract Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any matter in issue in the present suit must be directly and substantially the issue in the earlier suit instituted between the parties and the subject matter of the suits must be one and the same between the parties. He would further submit that as a matter of fact Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a restricted provision and not a permissive one. The Trial Court without properly analyzing the fact that the schedule of properties are different and without considering the fact that the parties are also different had stayed the suit. Further in the earlier suit filed by the respondent the description of the suit scheduled property is not clear and precise. The survey number and specific boundaries of the property have not been stated. As far as in the subsequent suit filed by the petitioner for declaration, the survey numbers, boundaries and the extent of the properties have also been clearly mentioned and the petitioner has sought for declaration to declare him as absolute owner of the suit schedule properties, whereas in the earlier suit the respondents have without specifying the boundaries or survey numbers had sought to declare the suit scheduled properties as a public road. Further in the earlier suit, the Government Officials were added as party and in the subsequent suit the Government officials are not parties. The learned counsel would further submit that inroder to attract Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is essential that the entire subject matter in controversy must be same between the previous suit and the subsequent suit. The test for applicabi