IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1637 of 2006 MURLIDHAR TIWARI & ORS. Versus CHAVINATH TIWARI & ORS. ----------- 4. 27.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. The petitioners have filed this civil revision application against the order dated 18.8.2006 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge VI, Bhojpur at Arrah in Title Suit No.407/2001 by which the learned court below has rejected the petition of the plaintiffs filed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the proceeding of the present suit, namely, Title Suit No.407/2001 pending before it or decide the same along with earlier suit, namely, Title Suit No.313 of 2000. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the suits are directly and substantially in between the same parties, for the same cause of action and involving the same subject matter of the suits and also pending in the same court. The case of the petitioners is that after filing of the present suit, the petitioners came to know about pendency of the earlier suit and they have themselves volunteered to get their suit stayed in - 2 - view of pendency of the earlier suit by filing this petition. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that if the plaints of the suits are examined, it will be apparent that they are not in between the same parties and not for the same cause of action and not involving the same issues. Therefore, the principle underlying Section 10 of the C.P.C. will not apply and its requirements will not stand satisfied in favour of the plaintiffs- petitioners. He further submits that since the present suit is at the advance stage and on the verge of conclusion whereas other suit is still at its threshold, it will not be in the interest of justice to stay the proceeding i.e. Title Suit No.407 of 2001 pending decision in the earlier suit i.e. Title Suit No.313 of 2000. From the impugned order it appears that the learned court below has rejected the petition of the plaintiffs filed under Section 10 of the C.P.C., merely on the ground that the present suit is at the advance stage and on the verge of conclusion whereas other suit is at its initial stage. From the impugned order it is clear that the learned court below has not applied its mind as to whether the requirements - 3 - of Section 10 of the C.P.C. stand fulfilled in the case or not for rejecting or otherwise the petition of the plaintiffs under Section 10 of the Code. In the circumstances, instead of going into the merits of the petition of the petitioners under Section 10 of the C.P.C., this Court sets aside the impugned order dated 18.8.2006 and remits back the matter to the learned court below for re-hearing the parties on the petition of the plaintiffs filed under Section 10 of the C.P.C. The court below shall, while hearing the parties on the petition under Section 10 of the C.P.C., take into account the requirements of law for allowing or otherwise of the said petition as emanating from the provisions of Section 10 of the C.P.C. and elaborated by judicial pronouncements and shall pass a reasoned order on the said petition in accordance with law. For that purpose, the court below shall neither take into account its earlier order dated 18.8.206, nor take the order of this Court as expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, either way. B.T (J.N Singh, J)