Ajit Singh Bains, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Hissar, dated May 28, 1977, rejecting the application of the petitioner -defendant under section 10, Civil Procedure Code for staying the suit filed by the plaintiffs respondents for grant of permanent injunction restraining the present petitioner and his co -defendants from interfering with their possession of the suit land.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondents (plaintiffs) filed a suit in the Court of Sub -Judge 1st Class, Hissar, for the grant of permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner and his co -defendants from interfering with their possession of the suit land. The petitioner (defendant) made an application under section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code that the suit proceedings may be stayed as the respondents (plaintiffs) had filed 17 suits against him and his co -defendants in the Revenue Court seeking occupancy rights in the suit land. This application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sub -Judge 1st Class, Hissar vide his order dated May 28, 1977. Hence the present revision petition. Mr. Bali, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the main dispute between the parties is pending before the Revenue Court and that the present suit filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) in the Civil Court is only for the issuance of permanent injunction against the petitioner and his co -defendants to restrain them from interfering with the imposition, of the suit land and that the finding of the Civil Court will create confusion as in the suits before the Revenue Court the case of the petitioner and other defendants is that the plaintiffs -respondents in the present case are not the tenants at all, whereas in the suit before the Civil Court their plea is that they are tenants at will and that the petitioner and other defendants may be restrained from interfering with their possession. I do not find any merit in this contention of Mr. Bali Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code is in the following terms. - - 10. Stay of suits. - -No court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue 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 grant 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 the Supreme Court. Explanation. - -The pendency of the suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Court in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action. Reading of this section shows that the object of this provision is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously entertaining and adjudicating upon two parallel litigations in respect of the same cause of action, the same subject -matter and the same relief. The object seems to be to confine the parties to one litigation so that there may not be judicial confusion by two different verdicts by different Courts. In the instant case, admittedly the Revenue Court and the Civil Court have no concurrent jurisdiction over the subject -matter of dispute. In the previous litigation pending between the parties before the Revenue Court the relief claimed is for conferring the occupancy rights on the respondents (plaintiffs) whereas in the suit before the Civil Court the relief claimed is for grant of permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner and other defendants from interfering with their possession of the suit land. Hence the subject matter and the relief claimed in the previous litigation pending before the Revenue Court and the subsequent litigation pending before the Civil Court are entirely different. In this view of the matter, I hold that the proceedings in a suit pending before the Civil Court cannot be stayed under section 10, Civil Procedure Code. There is no dearth of authorities in support of this proposition and some of these are Nanu Singh v. Muni Nath and others : A.I.R. 1954 Pat 314, Piara Mal and sons v. Rai Narain and Co., A.I.R. 1919 Lah 3(2) and Shri Mohan Lal Thapar v. Messrs Sardispat Udyog Chhehrata, Amritsar, (1973) 75 P.L.R. 443. The principle of law for the application of section 10, Civil Procedure Code has been laid down in these authorities. Following requirements are needed for the application of section 10, Civil Procedure Code: - - (1) The matter in issue must be directly or substantially the tame in both suits; (2) The parties must be the same claiming under the same title; (3) The Courts must have concurrent jurisdiction, that is, the court in which the previously instituted suit is pending is competent to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit; and (4) The relief claimed must be the same. In the present case, as observed earlier, relief claimed in both the court is different and the revenue Court where the earlier proceedings are pending is not competent to grant the relief of permanent injunction and the Civil Court is also not competent to grant the occupancy rights. Hence the requirements of section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code are not fulfilled in the present case. Mr. Bali, the learned counsel for the petitioner, could not cite any authority taking the contrary view 4. No further point is urged. 5. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed with costs. ;