Section 10 C. P. C. does not require complete identity of the subject-matter in the two suits, but there must be a substantial identity. The matter in issue in the two suits must be directly and substantially the same.

J. D. SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision against an order dated the 9th May 1959 of the learned second Additional Civil Judge, Agra.

( 2 ) THE applicant brought suit No. 69 of 1957 in the court of the Second Additional Civil Judge, agra, on the allegations that he was the owner of a Mercedez-Benz truck which he transferred to the defendants under a hire-purchase agreement which provided for the payment of the price in 12 instalments of Rs. 1,900/- each. Only five instalments were paid. In default the plaintiff was entitled to take back the truck, and by mutual agreement the truck was taken back by the plaintiff on the 10th April 1957. The plaintiff claimed a declaration that he was the owner and in rightful possession of the truck and for the recovery of the unpaid instalments.

( 3 ) THE defendants to the above suit (the opposite parties) brought suit No. 48 of 1958 in the same court on the allegations that they had purchased the truck from the defendant i. e. , the applicant)and had become owners thereof and it was wrongfully removed by the defendant from their possession on the 10th April 1957. The opposite parties claimed a declaration that they were the owners of the truck and damages for alleged removal of tyres etc. and further claimed Rs. 17,250/-as damages suffered by them.

( 4 ) THIS suit was contested, inter alia, on the grounds that the truck was given to the plaintiff under a hire-purchase agreement and as there was default in the payment of instalments the truclc was taken over by him by mutual agreement.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff of the earlier suit (the present applicant) made an application under Section 10 C. P. C. for stay of the second suit on the ground that the matter in issue in suit No. 48 of 1958 was directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suit No. 69 of 1957.

( 6 ) THE learned Second Additional Civil Judge held that the matter directly and substantially in issue in both the suits was whether the truck was given under a hire-purchase agreement or there was a sale, and as there were other questions regarding damages etc. arising in suit No. 48 of 1958, the decision in the earlier suit could not operate as res judicata and therefore the second suit was not liable to be stayed under Section 10. C. P. C.

( 7 ) IT is urged in revision that the matter relating to the nature of the transaction under which the truck was taken by the plaintiff of suit No. 48 of 1958 being directly and substantially in issue in both the suits the second suit was liable to be stayed under Section 10 C. P. C.

( 8 ) SECTION 10 C. P. C. says that 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. The object of the section is obviously to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. As observed in Jai Hind Iron Mart v. Tulsiram Bhagwandas, AIR 1953 Bom 117 the principle underlying Section 10 seems to be that the policy of the legislature is opposed to two courts with parallel jurisdiction proceeding simultaneously with two suits when there is a possibility of the two courts coming to different conclusions and thereby resulting in conflict of decisions. There is however a conflict regarding the exact scope of Section 10. One view is that Section 10 will apply only if there is a complete identity of the subject-matter in the two suits, so that decision in one suit will operate as res judicata in the other. The other view is that complete identity of the subject-matter is not necessary to attract the application of Section 10 and if a matter directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit is also directly and substantially in issue in a later suit then under Section 10 the later suit shall be stayed. Section 12 of the Code of 1882 contained the words "for the same relief" a