Section 10 CPC does not apply where suits raise different issues and causes of action.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed O.S. No. 252/2021 against the petitioner and respondent No. 4, seeking vacant possession of the suit property, arrears of rent and permanent injunction. They alleged that the petitioner’s tenancy was not continued after 1 December 2020 and that he failed to deliver possession.

Before that suit was instituted, the petitioner had filed O.S. No. 89/2021 against the respondents, seeking a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession or evicting him from the same premises.

The petitioner sought a stay of O.S. No. 252/2021 under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Trial Court rejected the application, finding the suits different in nature; the petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether Section 10 CPC required a stay of O.S. No. 252/2021 because the matter in issue was directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted O.S. No. 89/2021.

2. Whether the Trial Court’s rejection of the petitioner’s stay application warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Section 10 CPC bars a court from proceeding with the trial of a suit where the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or parties claiming under them, litigating under the same title, provided the earlier suit is pending before a court competent to grant the relief claimed.

The High Court also considered the principle in Smt. P. Devika @ Suma v. Sri C.M. Pranesh, W.P. No. 24886/2017, cited by the petitioner for the proposition that Section 10 may apply when the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in an earlier suit; it found that the issues and reliefs in the present suits were not the same or substantially the same.

Although the parties and property in the two suits were the same, O.S. No. 89/2021 sought a permanent injunction against interference with the petitioner’s possession, while O.S. No. 252/2021 sought possession and arrears of rent.

The High Court concluded that the issues and reliefs were neither the same nor substantially the same and that the statutory requirement under Section 10 CPC was therefore not met.

It found no ground to interfere with the Trial Court’s order.

It dismissed the writ petition and directed that any pending interlocutory applications stand dismissed as not surviving for consideration.