Concurrent proceedings under CPC stay rules cannot halt a civil suit based on a pending labour challenge.

Section 10 CPC applies only where the earlier and later proceedings are suits in civil courts involving the same matter directly and substantially in issue, so that the prior decision would operate as res judicata. A labour adjudication and a civil suit for recovery of pecuniary loss arise from different causes of action and are not proceedings before courts of concurrent jurisdiction. Where Section 10 does not apply, Section 151 cannot be used to bypass that specific limitation. The stay of the civil suit was therefore not maintainable, and the order granting stay was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a civil suit for recovery of pecuniary loss could be stayed under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that a writ petition challenging the Labour Court award was pending.

Analysis: Section 10 applies only where the earlier and later proceedings are suits in civil courts involving the same matter directly and substantially in issue, so that the earlier decision would operate as res judicata in the later suit. The object of the provision is to avoid parallel trials and conflicting findings in proceedings of concurrent jurisdiction. A labour adjudication and a civil suit for recovery of loss operate in distinct spheres, arise from different causes of action, and are not proceedings before courts of concurrent jurisdiction. Where the Code expressly deals with the matter, inherent powers under Section 151 cannot be used to override or bypass the specific limitation in Section 10.

Conclusion: The application for stay was not maintainable. Section 10 had no application, Section 151 could not be invoked to achieve the same result, and the High Court's order staying the civil suit was set aside in favour of the appellant.

---