Civil Revision No.7126 of 2008 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.7126 of 2008 Decided on : May 05, 2009 M/s Warren Steels (P) Ltd. ... Petitioner VERSUS M/s Atam Valves (P) Ltd. ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Naresh Markanda, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Kavita Markanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sandeep Jain, Advocate for the respondent. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This petition has arisen out of the order dated 1.10.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, dismissing the application of the defendant – petitioner under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of proceedings in the suit. Factual background of the case is that the petitioner M/s Warren Steels (P) Limited filed a suit in the court of Additional District Judge No.II, Jaipur for recovery of Rs.13,36,710/- on account of unpaid sales. He pleaded in the said suit that against the debit of Civil Revision No.7126 of 2008 [ 2 ] Rs.34,39,373/-, the defendant credited Rs.21,02,663/-, therefore, he was entitled to recover the remaining sale price. On the other hand, counsel for the plaintiff- respondent contended that the respondent has filed the present suit in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Jalandhar for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,10,75,000/- on the basis of annealing charges, loss occurred due to delay in execution of order, non-supply of material, cost of 33 sets of dies with trademark and cost of new dies along with damages for time loss in getting the new dies fabricated. Now, by way of the application in question, the defendant – petitioner (of the second suit) has sought stay of the suit pending at Jalandhar. Having scrutinised the record, it is noticed that the necessary ingredients for staying the proceedings as envisaged under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not stand complied with. In order to stay a suit under the said provisions, the suit filed subsequently should be between the same parties, with regard to the same subject matter and on same cause of action. The suit filed by the defendant – petitioner is against two persons. Besides, the present respondent, Mr.Vimal Parkash Jain has also been impleaded as party. More so, the petitioner in the suit filed at Jaipur, has set up the claim on the basis of the unpaid amount of sales, whereas, the respondent has filed the instant suit for recovery in the court at Jalandhar, on the basis of damages and cost of dies lying with the petitioner, besides the annealing charges. So, cause of action to file the subsequent suit is also Civil Revision No.7126 of 2008 [ 3 ] different. Though, the respondent could file written statement raising a counter claim in the earlier suit, yet the independent suit for recovery on different counts against the same party and on the basis of different causes of action is not barred and hence, proceedings therein could not be stayed. Judgment, if any, to be placed reliance in this regard is Shah Ganda Lal Tribhovan vs. Sachdeva & Sons Rice Mills Limited, Amritsar, 1999(2) Civil Court Cases 147 (P&H),, wherein, it was observed as under:- “The relevant facts are that respondent Sachdeva & Sons Rice Mills Ltd has filed a civil suit for recovery of specific amount against the petitioner Amizara Traders. The petitioner claimed that the said suit should be stayed in view of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code contending that the petitioner had filed a civil suit which has already been pending for recovery of a specific amount. It had been contended therein that the petitioner had been purchasing different kinds of rice from the respondent, but as the price of the rice increased, the respondent did not care to send the goods and the petitioner has suffered the loss. According to the petitioner, the matter directly and substantially involved in the earlier suit is the same and, therefore, the subsequently instituted suit should be stayed between the parties.” After considering the aforesaid facts of the case, the Trial Court Civil Revision No.7126 of 2008 [ 4 ] declined to stay the suit. In revision, the High Court also refused to interfere, while holding as under:- “There is no ground to interfere in the said order. The petitioner filed a civil suit for recovery of damages for not supplying the rice agreed upon. The present suit has been filed by the respondent for recovery of the amount for the unpaid price of the rice. It is abundantly clear from the aforesaid that the matter in question in both the suits is not substantially the same. The acid test is when the decision of the earlier suit will operate as resjudicata in the subsequently instituted suit.” The decision in case M/s Sehgal Knitwears vs. M/s Shresth International and another, AIR 2001 Punjab & Haryana 160 is on different set of facts and, thus, cannot be made applicable in the present case. Resultantly, the petition being without merit is dismissed. May 05, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE