The subject matter of two suits is substantially the same if, if the first suit was determined, the matters raised in the second suit would be respondent judicata by reason of the decision of the prior suit.

1. This petition for revision is directed against the decision of the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana, rejecting the application of the defendants under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of the suit.

2. Messrs. C. Raman and Company a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act and having its registered office at 79, Apollo Street, Bombay, filed a suit against Messrs. Modern Motor Works, a partnership firm having its office at G. T. Road, Ludhiana, and its two partners, J. N. Gupta and R. N. Gupta. This suit was filed as far back as 15th November, 1968, and the defendants filed a written statement in the Bombay High Court. In this suit claim was made for recovery of Rs. 74,656/80 with future interest on Rs. 70,630.98 at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the suit till judgment and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till payment.

3. In the plaint in the suit, it is stated that in pursuance of an agreement dated 26th August, 1961, entered into with Ex-Cello India Ltd., C. Raman and Company, the plaintiffs, acted as the sole selling agents for propeller shafts and spare parts manufactured by the said company. According to the plaintiffs, prior to 1964, they were selling to the defendants as dealers and traders automobile parts and from 1964 onwards the plaintiffs also started selling to the defendants propeller shafts manufactured by Ex-Cello India Ltd. In May, 1965, negotiations took place between the plaintiffs and the defendants for the appointment of the defendants as the distributors of the said propeller shafts and spare parts manufactured by the said concern for the territory of the north zone comprising of Delhi, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. On 26th May, 1965, the plaintiffs appointed the defendants in Bombay as distributors of the said propeller shafts and spare parts, manufactured by Ex-Cello India Ltd. Under this agreement, the defendants placed orders with the plaintiffs from time tot time and supplied the same to the Delhi Office as well as the Ludhiana office of the defendants-firm. As according to the plaintiffs, certain accounts were not cleared by the defendants, the plaintiffs, by their letter dated 29th August, 1967 informed the defendants that from 31st August, 1967, the distributorship agreement for the said propeller shafts and spare parts would stand terminated. As the disputes between the plaintiffs and the defendants were not settled the plaintiffs filed a suit in the Bombay High Court.

4. The defendants filed their written statement in the Bombay suit and controverted the allegations of the plaintiffs and pleaded that on accounts being taken between the plaintiffs and the defendants it will be found that the plaintiffs are indebted to the defendants to a large extent, for recovery of which t he defendants proposed to file a separate suit. An indication was given in the written statement about the amounts that are alleged to be due by the plaintiffs to the defendants. In view of their statement that they will file a suit to recover the amount due to them, the defendants filed a suit on 31st August, 1970, in the Ludhiana Court. Besides the plaintiffs, they impleaded Messrs. Ex-Cello India Ltd., Bombay, as one of the defendants and the other two defendants, besides Messrs. C. Raman and Co., are the partners of the said company.

5. The suit in the Ludhiana Court was for recovery of Rs. 1,82,414/- and the break of this amount is as follows:-

-

1. Amount of outstanding claims/bills of the plaintiffs as detailed in Annexure A of this plaint. Rs, 9,223.16

2. Amount refundable to the plaintiffs on account of prices of Ex-Cello Products charged in excess than the fixed prices as per details given in Annexure B of this Suit: Rs. 40,876.00

3. Amount claimed as compensation by way of damages suffered by the plaintiffs in respect of stocks of Ex-Cello Products held by the plaintiffs on 31-8-1967 by way of diffe