CRP 365/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr BD Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mrs T Go swami, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr D Nath, learned counsel fo r the respondent No.2. The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in Money Suit No.177/2002, by th e present petition have challenged the order dated 13th July 2004 passed by lear ned Civil Judge(Sr Division) No.2 (now Civil Judge), Kamrup at Guwahati allowing the application filed under Section 10 of CPC by the present respondent No.1, w ho is the defendant No.1 in the suit, whereby and where-under the suit filed by the present petitioners for realization of a sum of Rs.5,62,44,686.18 towards th e charge of electricity consumption, has been stayed. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the m atter in issue in Title Suit No.61/99 filed by the present respondent No.1 is no t the matter in issue in Money Suit No.177/ 2002 filed by the present petitioner s; that apart, no relief was claimed against the present petitioners in the suit being TS No.61/99 filed by the present respondent No.1 against the present resp ondent No.2, where the present petitioners are the proforma-defendants. Learned counsel further submits that one of the grounds on which the application filed u nder Section 10 of CPC by the present respondent No.1 was allowed, does not exis t now, in view of the order dated 25th August 2010 passed by learned Civil Judge , Bongaigaon in Title Suit No.61/99 allowing the present respondent No.2, who is the defendant No.1 in the said suit, to abandon the claim for the electricity c harge, as raised in the counter-claim. The other ground, according to learned co unsel for the petitioners, on which the jurisdiction under Section 10 of CPC has been exercised by learned Court below is that, according to the respondent No.1 , the liability to pay electricity charge is on the present respondent No.2, for which Title Suit No.61/99 has already been instituted. According to learned cou nsel, that plea can very well be set up in the suit filed by the present respond ent No.1 in Money Suit No.177/2002. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that they have abandoned their counter claim with regard to the electricity charge sought to be recovere d from the respondent No.1 in Title Suit No.61/99, and such prayer has been allo wed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 25th August 2010 passed in Title Suit No.61/99. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the matter in issue in TS No.61/99 being substantially in issue in Money Suit No.177/2002, learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order dated 13th July 2004. Section 10 of CPC provides that no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in iss ue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between 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 g rant 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 t he Supreme Court. Explanation to Section 10, however, provides that the pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit fou nded on the same cause of action. Title Suit No.61/1999 was filed by the present respondent No.1 claiming a decree for Rs.6,76,100.00 against the present respondent No.2 as defendant No. 1, apart from praying for a decree declaring termination of the memorandum of u nderstanding dated 1st March 1995 entered into between the plaintiffs and the de fendant No.1, and the lease agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and th e defendant No.1 on 11th September 1995 for revival and restarting of the Paper Mill is unwarranted, arbitrary, malafide, illegal and void. On the other hand, M oney Suit No.177/92 has been filed by the present petitioners, who are proforma- defendants in TS No.61/99 and against whom no relief has been claimed, against t he respondent No.1, for realization of electrical charge. The issue involved in TS No.61/99 is not in issue in M.S. No.177/2002. That apart, no relief has been claimed against the present petitioners by the respondent No.1 in the suit filed by him i.e. in TS No.61/99. Moreover, it appears from the order dated 25th Augu st 2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon in TS No.61/99 that the counte r-claim of the present respondent No.2 with regard to claim for realization of c ertain amount towards electricity charge was allowed to be withdrawn. That being the position, I am of the view that the order dated 13th July 2004 requires interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which I accordingly do. The impugned o rder dated 13th July 2004 is set aside. Learned Court below is directed to proce ed with Money Suit NO.177/2002. The parties are directed to appear before the le arned Court below on 8th November 2010 for necessary orders from that Court. The revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs .