C.R. No.5366 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5366 of 2010 Date of Decision: 25.08.2010 M/s Agra Oil & General Industries Ltd. .……Petitioner Versus M/s D.C. Trading Co. ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Defendant has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 03.08.2010 Annexure P-7 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri thereby dismissing application moved by defendant-petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) for stay of the suit filed by plaintiff- respondent against the defendant-petitioner. It is undisputed that the plaintiff-respondent supplied mustard to the defendant-petitioner. The petitioner is based at Agra whereas the respondent is based at Charkhi Dadri, Distt. Bhiwani. Petitioner along with another firm filed suit against the respondent at Agra vide plaint Annexure P-1 alleging that the respondent had taken loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from the petitioner on 09.06.2009 and the respondent issued post dated cheques for the same. Petitioner's further case in plaint Annexure P-1 is that on 29.07.2009, respondent again obtained cheques of Rs.20,00,000/- from the petitioner by C.R. No.5366 of 2010 -2- fraud and misrepresentation alleging the same to be meant for making entries in the account books which had not been made earlier pursuant to loan dated 09.06.2009. Accordingly, petitioner and another have filed suit for recovery of Rs.20,00,000/- against the respondent at Agra. On the other hand, respondent has filed suit against the petitioner at Charkhi Dadri for recovery of Rs.16,96,975/- i.e Rs.15,78,585/- as principal amount and Rs.1,18,390/- as interest thereon, being balance amount of the mustard supplied by respondent to the petitioner. Petitioner moved application under Section 10 CPC for stay of suit filed by respondent at Charkhi Dadri on the ground that the suit already filed by petitioner along with another at Agra is pending and issues directly and substantially involved in both the suits are same. The said application has been dismissed by the Trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-7. Feeling aggrieved, instant revision petition has been preferred by the defendant. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that issues to be adjudicated upon in both the suits relate to settling of accounts regarding price of the mustard supplied by respondent to the petitioner and, therefore, suit instituted by the respondent subsequently is required to be stayed under Section 10 CPC as petitioner and another have already instituted the suit against the respondent at Agra. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but C.R. No.5366 of 2010 -3- find no merit therein. Suit filed by petitioner and another at Agra vide plaint Annexure P-1 does not relate to any transaction of mustard supplied by respondent to the petitioner, but relates to an independent loan transaction. In fact the said suit does not even relate to loan transaction, but relates to alleged fraud committed by respondent in obtaining cheques for the second time for the loan amount. Of course, in plaint Annexure P-1 instituted by petitioner and another at Agra, reference has been made to dealings between petitioner and respondent relating to supply of mustard by respondent to the petitioner, but the claim in plaint Annexure P-1 does not relate to any amount arising out of mustard dealings, but relates to independent transaction of Rs.20,00,000/-. On the contrary respondent has filed suit at Charkhi Dadri against the petitioner claiming balance amount of mustard supplied by respondent to the petitioner. It is thus manifest that issues directly and substantially involved in the two suits are different and distinct and not the same. Consequently, Section 10 CPC is not attracted. There is no illegality in the impugned order of the trial Court. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 25.08.2010. A. Kaundal