AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.—This is a Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 82 of 1918 on the file of the District Munsif''s Court of
Taliparamba. The suit was for redemption of certain lands by the plaintiff, and one of the issues raised was whether the plaintiff who claimed under
an adoption had been validly adopted. It appears that in a previous action between the plaintiff and the first defendant the same issue had been
raised and is now pending disposal in an appeal before the District Judge of South Malabar having been remanded after a second appeal by this
Court. The defendant in this suit put in an application to the District Munsif''s Court u/s 10 of the CPC for staying the trial of this suit pending the
disposal of that appeal which is still pending. The District Munsif made an order of stay. I think the order of the District Munsif was wrong. u/s 10
of the CPC it is necessary that the matter in issue must be directly and substantially in issue in both the suits. The learned Counsel for the
respondent argued that the expression ""matter in issue"" should be construed as meaning merely the main question involved in the suit, and his
contention was that as the issue relating to the adoption was the main question in that suit as well as in the present suit the order of the District
Munsif was right. But I do not think that the expression ""matter in issue"" can be so construed.
I believe the real intention of the Legislature in framing Section 10 of the CPC was merely to prevent later suits relating to the same subject-
matter being tried before an earlier suit relating to the same subject-matter is tried and disposed of. Otherwise the result will be that it any issue
should be common to two suits the later suit could never possibly be disposed of before the earlier suit. But we know that the law recognises that
the decision even in a later suit-may operate as res judicata in a suit which has been really instituted previously. There is also direct authority for the
position reported in Sreeramulu v. Sreeramulu (1922) 15 LW 646, where Mr. Justice Venkatasubba Rao construing this very section has, after
referring to the previous decisions, come to the conclusion that the expression ""matter in issue"" in Section 10 has reference to the entire subject in
controversy between the parties. The order of the District Munsif is set aside and the petition is allowed. The respondent will pay the petitioner''s
costs in this Court.