The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 10 of the CPC, emphasizing the requirement for the matter in issue to be directly and substantially the same in previously instituted suits between the same parties.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. WP(C) No.20 of 2017 and WP(C) No.21 of 2017 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are being disposed of by this common Judgment. They arise out of the impugned Orders of the learned District Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok, dated 05-12-2016, in Money Suit No.10 of 2015 [Mr. Ankit Sarda vs. Pawan Kumar Todi and Order dated 05-12-2016 passed in Money Suit No.9 of 2015 [Mr. Ankit Sarda vs. Pawan Kumar Todi (HUF)], respectively.

2. The Petitioner’s case, in WP(C) No.21 of 2017, is that, he had filed a Suit for recovery of money against the Respondent, before the Learned 7th Bench of the City Civil Court, at Kolkata, on 16-04-2015, being Money Suit No.220 of 2015. The facts enumerated therein were that sometime in November 2012, the Respondent had approached the Petitioner to be a franchisee of the Petitioner’s Company, in Siliguri, West Bengal. On the basis of the agreed terms, the Respondent advanced some money to the Petitioner, who in turn supplied some computers, servers and peripherals worth Rs.9,75,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs and seventy-five thousand) only, to the Respondent at the Respondent’s Siliguri Office, which however closed down after a few months. Therefore, the Petitioner sought recovery of Rs.1,03,026/- (Rupees one lakh, three thousand and twenty six) only, being the difference in the value of goods supplied and the advance made by the Respondent. Instead, two and half months’ later, the Respondent filed a Money Suit against the Petitioner, being Money Suit No.09 of 2015, in the Court of the Learned District Judge, East Sikkim, at Gangtok, on 06-07-2015 seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.10,11,044/- (Rupees ten lakhs, eleven thousand and forty-four) only, from the Petitioner.

3. In WP(C) No. 20 of 2017, it was averred that the supply of computers and peripherals by the Petitioner to the Respondent amounted to Rs.20,40,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs and forty thousand) only, hence the Petitioner sought recovery of an amount of Rs.94,200/- (Rupees ninety-four thousand and two hundred) only, from the Respondent as the difference between the supplies and the money advanced by the Respondent. The Respondent for this part filed Money Suit No. 10/2015 in the Court of the learned District Judge, East Sikkim, on 6-7-2015, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.22,74,914/- (Rupees twenty-two lakhs, seventy-four thousand, nine-hundred and fourteen) only, from the Petitioner herein alleging that he had advanced loan to the Petitioner.

4. In both matters, the Petitioner filed an Application each under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”), on 04-11-2015 before the learned Court at Gangtok, seeking stay of both the above proceedings, as according to him the Civil Suits filed by him in Kolkata were prior in time to those filed by the Respondent in Gangtok. That, the subject matters in the City Civil Court, at Kolkata and the issues in the suits filed by the Respondent before the Gangtok Court are directly and substantially the same. That, the Learned Trial Court had directed the Petitioner to furnish a certified copy of the Plaint filed by him in Kolkata and fixed 05-12-2016 for orders. However, the required documents were delayed, prompting the Court to reject the Petitioner’s Applications, inter alia, with the reasoning that if the parties in the instant case and the case before the VIIth Bench of the City Civil Court, at Kolkata were the same, it did not tantamount to the claim of the parties being in respect of the same transaction. It is contended herein that the provisions of Section 10 of the CPC are mandatory and that if the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same in the previous and latter suit, between the same parties, then the later suit must be stayed. Learned Counsel garnered succour from the decisions in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara, (2005) 2 SCC 256 and Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao R