Vandanda Kasrekar, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Anuppur in Civil Suit No. 4-A/2016 thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a civil suit before the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Anuppur challenging the order dated 04.12.2015 whereby application preferred by the respondent No. 1 under Public Trust Act for changing the office bearer of trust after the death of Principal Trustee/Foundation Trustee Swami Gopalnandji has been rejected. The said civil suit was filed on the ground that the present petitioner was appointed as Principal Trustee of the Shiv Gopal Charitable Trust, Amarkantak. Thereafter, possession of trust property was given to the petitioner. The trust Shri Shivgopal Dharmarth Trust, Amarkantak is registered as Public Trust vide order dated 28.11.2007 and Swami Gopalnandji was appointed as Principal Trustee/Foundation Trustee of the said trust. Swami Gopalnandji died on 24.05.2015 and after the death of Swami Gopalnandji, the plaintiff is handling the affair of trust. It is further stated in the plaint that the petitioner/defendant No. 2 is not disciple of Swami Gopalnandji Maharaj and he is coming from Varanasi and has been living in the Ashram last one year and, therefore, the order dated 04.12.2015 passed by respondent No. 4 be declared null and void. Thereafter, respondent No. 1/plaintiff moved an application under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code for appointment of receiver and the said application is pending for adjudication. It is further stated that before filing the above stated suit, respondent No. 1/plaintiff has already filed a Civil Suit No. 300A/2015 for permanent injunction against the petitioner in respect of the same subject matter and it is pending before the Court of Civil Judge Class- I, Rajendragram, District Anuppur.

3. After receiving the summons of the said suit, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Anuppur for staying the proceedings of the said suit on the ground that respondent No. 1/plaintiff has already preferred a civil suit against the petitioner in regard to the same subject matter before the Court of Civil Judge Class-I, Rajendragram, District Anuppur. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff has also filed reply of the said application.

4. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the trial Court vide order dated 03.05.2016 has dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the trial Court has erred in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, He further argues that the subject matter of both the suits are substantially identical and, therefore, as per Section 10 of the CPC, the Court ought to have allowed the application preferred by the petitioner. He further relied on the judgement passed by the Apex Court in the case of National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara, (2005) 2 SCC 256 as well as the judgement passed by this Court in the case of Dadolwa and Another v. Ramakant and Others, 2014 (2) MPLJ 606. On the basis of these judgements he argues that it is not necessary that there should be complete identity of parties in both matters.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supports the order passed by the trial Court and argues that the relief which is claimed in both the suits is not identical. He further submits that parties of both the suits are different. The previous suit is filed seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner, however, the subsequent suit was file