MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA,J. - (1.) This is an application filed by the defendant no. 2 in the suit for stay of trial in the suit on the ground that two suits have been filed by the defendant in the District Court at Khulna, Bangladesh, in respect of the same transaction between the same parties. The suits filed in Bangladesh are admittedly prior proceedings and according to the defendant no. 2 the trial in the Bangladesh suit is about to be completed. The defendant no. 2 is the plaintiff in Suit No. 6 of 2016 before the District Court at Khulna and the plaintiff herein is first defendant in the Bangladesh Suits.
(2.) The present suit before this court has been filed against the defendant no. 2 and others for recovery of money and damages for goods exported to the defendant no. 2 and two others in Bangladesh. The Bangladesh suits are for decree against the plaintiff herein and for an injunction restraining the plaintiff for transferring the amounts in the letters of credit to the plaintiff's banks in Kolkata.
(3.) In support of the application for stay of the trial of the suit, Mr. Reetobroto Mitra, counsel appearing for the defendant no. 2, invites this Court to consider the Explanation to Section 10 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and submits that the explanation confers a discretion on a Court whether to stay a suit when another suit is pending in a foreign Court on the same cause of action. He submits that the words "does not preclude" in the Explanation gives an option to a Court to stay a suit despite the language used in Section 10 which limits the operation of the said section to Courts in India. He relies on the principle of Comity of Courts and urges that the said principle has evolved into more than a request extended by one Court to another. He relies on the fact that the suits in Bangladesh are at an advance stage of hearing and any orders passed by this Court on the present suit would have an irreversible bearing on the suits in Bangladesh which have admittedly been filed earlier. He points to the conduct of the plaintiff in refusing to enter appearance before the First Joint District Judge, Khulna and instead invoking the jurisdiction of this Court by filing a later suit on the same cause of action. The authorities relied upon by counsel are Lloyds Triestino Societa v. Laxminarayan Ramniwas reported in AIR 1959 Calcutta 669 (upheld in AIR 1960 Calcutta 155) and Jugometal Trg Republike v. Rungta And Sons (Private) Ltd. reported in AIR 1966 Calcutta 382 CWN 375 as instances where a subsequent proceeding was stayed Section 10 of the CPC.;