Section 10 CPC stay fails where the later suit arises from a distinct cause of action despite common parties and issues.

Section 10 CPC applies only where the entire matter in controversy in the later suit is directly and substantially the same as in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, and the earlier court is competent to grant the relief. The governing test is whether a decision in the earlier suit would operate as res judicata in the later suit. Common parties and a shared broad ground, such as eviction for non-user, are not enough if the factual basis or cause of action differs. On the stated facts, the period of alleged non-user in the third suit was distinct, so the stay was unsustainable and Section 10 was not attracted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the subsequent eviction suit was liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the matter in issue was directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted suits.

Analysis: Section 10 is mandatory and is attracted only when the matter in issue in the subsequent suit is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties and the earlier court is competent to grant the relief claimed. The governing test is whether a final decision in the earlier suit would operate as res judicata in the later suit. The mere fact that some issues or the broad ground of eviction are common does not suffice; the whole of the subject-matter in controversy must be identical. Here, although the suits involved the same parties and a common broad allegation of non-user, the period of alleged non-user in the third suit was different and constituted a distinct cause of action.

Conclusion: Section 10 was not attracted and the stay of the third suit was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies only when the entire matter in controversy in the later suit is directly and substantially identical to that in the earlier suit, in the sense that a decision in the earlier suit would operate as res judicata in the later suit.

---