In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5884 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: May 12, 2009 Dinesh Kumar and others .. Petitioners Vs. Sukhbir Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. K.B. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Pratibha Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. A.N. Jindal, J An application filed by the appellants-petitioners (herein referred as 'the petitioners') under Section 10 of CPC, for staying the proceedings in appeal titled as Dinesh Kumar and others vs. Sukhbir Singh and others, has been dismissed. The appeal pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari has arisen from the civil suit filed by Sukhbir Singh. Ram Kumar had also filed a separate suit titled as “Ram Kumar vs. Sukhbir and others”. Now the petitioners want that during the pendency of the suit filed by Ram Kumar against Sukhbir Singh and others, proceedings in appeal should remain stayed. The appellate court refused to stay the proceedings. Heard. Record perused. The appeal preferred by the present petitioners is against the judgment and decree dated 29.9.2004, whereas, the admitted fact is that a suit filed by Ram Kumar is still pending before the civil court. Now the petitioners want that during the pendency of the suit pending before the trial court, the appeal preferred by him be stayed, which is quite against the spirit of Section 10 of CPC, which is reproduced as under :- “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, or between Civil Revision No. 5884 of 2008 -2- *** parties under whom, they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other court in (India) having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before (the Supreme Court). Explanation: The pendency of a suit in a foreign court does not preclude the courts in (India) from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.” Thus, from the bare reading of the Section, it transpires that the necessary essentials for stay of the proceedings are that subsequently instituted suit between the same parties involving the same subject matter and litigating under the same title, could be stayed. There is no provisions to stay the judgment and decree already passed in the suit and under challenge in appeal. The provisions clearly speak for staying the subsequently instituted pending suit and not the case which is already decided. The petitioners having suffered a judgment and decree against themselves, after full trial of the case want to undo its effect by stay of appeal. Consequently, finding no defect or irregularity in the impugned order, the same does not call for interference by this court. Dismissed. May 12, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge