C.R. No. 3630 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3630 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.11.2009 M/s Shree Shyam Jee Agencies & another .......... Petitioners Versus Regd. Firm M/s Takkar ( India) Tea Company, Kaithal & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Sameer Rathaur, Advocate for Ms. Manjari Nehru, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.3.2009, passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge ( Sr. Divn.), Kaithal vide which application moved by the petitioners under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of the suit filed by the plaintiff / respondents was ordered to be dismissed. The respondent / plaintiffs had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,50,000/- ( Rupees four lacs and fifty thousand only ) with a relief of mandatory injunction against the petitioner on the basis of super stockiest C.R. No. 3630 of 2009 2 agreement executed between the parties. It is not in dispute that prior to filing of the present suit, the petitioners had filed a suit in the Court of competent jurisdiction in Rajasthan against the respondent / plaintiff for rendition of accounts. Preliminary decree of rendition of accounts stands passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit filed by the petitioners against the plaintiff was still pending as the final decree in the Court at Rajasthan, is yet to be passed. The subsequent suit on the same cause of action, between the parties was liable to be stayed. The learned trial Court dismissed the application merely on the ground that the parties to the suit were different, and that the cause of action in both the suits was not the same. The suit for rendition of account being not similar to the suit for recovery. The finding of the learned trial Court cannot be sustained. Once it is not in dispute that the rendition of account was sought by the petitioners, on the basis of Super stockiest agreement, and that the preliminary decree had already been passed, the second suit for recovery on the basis of said agreement was, therefore, on the same cause of action. The plaintiff / respondents are also claiming recovery of money on the basis of the super stockiest agreement. The main dispute is between petitioners and defendant No.1 ( respondent No.1 herein), therefore, it could not be said that the parties were different, to reject the prayer for stay of suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. C.R. No. 3630 of 2009 3 For the reasons stated above, this revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiff / respondents is ordered to be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 19.11.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE