### Section 10 CPC Stay Refused Where Suits Involving Common Trustees Pertain to Distinct Trusts and Cause of Action

The defendants filed an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking a stay of the present suit (the "Delhi Suit") pending the adjudication of an earlier suit in Indore (the "Indore Suit")

The defendants argued that both suits involved the same set of trustees and challenged the appointment of defendant nos. 2 to 6, asserting the matters in issue were substantially identical and supported by common documents

The Indore Suit had been dismissed on grounds of limitation, and an appeal was pending

The plaintiffs opposed the stay, stating that while the parties were similar, the suits concerned two different trusts: T. Choithram Foundation (registered in Delhi, running schools) and Choithram Charitable Trust (registered in Madhya Pradesh, running hospitals)

1. Whether the "matter in issue" in the Delhi Suit is directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted Indore Suit so as to warrant a stay under Section 10 of the CPC.

2. Whether the decision in the Indore Suit regarding limitation would operate as res judicata in the present Delhi Suit.

The court applied Section 10 of the CPC, which mandates that a court shall not proceed with a suit if the matter in issue is "directly and substantially in issue" in a previously instituted suit between the same parties

Relying on National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara and Aspi Jal Anr. v. Khusroo Rustom Dadyburjor, the court affirmed that Section 10 applies only when the entire subject matter is identical, rather than merely incidental or collateral

The fundamental test is whether a final decision in the first suit would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit

The Court observed that while the parties and some documents overlapped, the suits pertained to two distinct legal entities

The Delhi Suit concerned the T. Choithram Foundation, governed by a 1971 Delhi trust deed, while the Indore Suit concerned the Choithram Charitable Trust, governed by a 1970 deed and the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951

The Court highlighted that the trust deeds contained different provisions regarding quorum, trustee removal, and objectives (schools vs. hospitals)

It found that the cause of action in Delhi was based on specific communications from 2021, whereas the Indore Suit was based on different discovery events

Furthermore, a finding of limitation in the Indore Suit could not bind the Delhi Suit because they involve different trusts and distinct causes of action

The Court distinguished the defendants' precedents, noting that a trust’s lack of juristic personality does not merge the distinct subject matters of two separate trusts into one "matter in issue"

It held that the subject matters were not identical and that the final decision in the Indore Suit would not operate as res judicata in the Delhi Suit

The Court directed the interim orders to continue and listed the matter for further proceedings