JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi, in I.A.No.164 of 2018 in O.S.No.234 of 2012, dated 23.02.2018.)

1. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order passed by the Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi, in I.A.No.164 of 2018 in O.S.No.234 of 2012, dated 23.02.2018.

2. The revision petitioner is the first defendant before the trial Court. According to the revision petitioner, there was a suit in O.S.No.394 of 2004, for the relief of permanent injunction against him, based upon the lease agreement executed by Thoothukudi Naidu Mahajana Sangam Trust. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, an appeal was filed by the defendant in A.S.No.221 of 2005 and the said first appeal was also dismissed on 19.12.2010. Against which, Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.805 of 2012, was filed and the same is pending before this Court for final disposal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, when an earlier suit in O.S.No.394 of 2004 was filed and is pending before this Court in S.A.(MD)No.805 of 2012, a subsequent suit in O.S.No.234 of 2012, which is also for directly and substantially on the same issue of the earlier suit cannot be proceeded by virtue of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, till the disposal of the Second Appeal in S.A.(MD)No.805 of 2012.

4. The respondent / plaintiff has filed the counter statement stating that both the suits are filed for a different relief, and that the application has been filed only to delay the proceedings. Further the respondent / plaintiff also stated that in earlier C.R.P.(MD)No.1121 of 2014, filed against the order passed in I.A.No.369 of 2014 in O.S.No. 234 of 2012, the petitioner himself agreed to proceed with the trial and has given an undertaking before this Court in this regard. However, contrary to the undertaking, the petitioner filed an application under Section 10 of C.P.C. Therefore, he would submit that the very application under Section 10 C.P.C. is not at all maintainable.

5. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge, ultimately dismissed the application on the ground that, the decision in the earlier suit, viz., O.S.No.394 of 2004 has no bearing in the subsequent suit in O.S.No. 234 of 2012, and also further found that the petitioner has filed the instant application only to prolong the proceedings. Therefore, the learned trial Judge ultimately dismissed the application. Aggrieved with the order, the instant Revision has been filed.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submission.

7. In order to understand the issue more effectively, it is appropriate to extract Section 10 of C.P.C. :

“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 under 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.”

8. The main ingredient to bring the second suit within the contour of Section 10 C.P.C would be, the issue involved in the subsequent suit in O.S.No.234 of 2012, should be directly and substantially an issue of the previously instituted suit in O.S.No.394 of 2004. If we closely read the plaint of O.S.No.394 of 2004, the plaintiff has pleaded that he entered into a lease agreement