i al “conffON'e® jowed an opportunity to vein ay on under order 9 rule 9 CPC vation May be made accordingly iudgment. Mr Rahman vehemently jude ayer. In my opinion, no such the prayer 4 . oppo n can be given by this court in the aie Revisional application. i In view of the discussion above, I am inion that the impugned order was under rule 8 of Order 9 of the Code of procedure as the plaintiff did not iar when the suit was called on for ering and, as such, it was not appealable. The learned District Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the appeal was not competent. Therefore, the learned Court of appeal below did not commit any error of law which calls for interference by this court. 1. Accordingly, the Rule is discharged without any order as to costs. Send down the LC Records. Ed. 6 of opi civil High Court Division (Civil Revisional Jurisdiction) Mahmud Amin } Shanabuddin Mian Gtoudhury Jand 5 (Md).........-Petitioner our Gopal Saha J vs. Bangladesh Agricultu- ral University, Mymen- singh...Opposite Party* Judgment January 13th, 1998 Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) ection 10, compra dttematter in dispute in two sults are mately iferent andthe decision in te previous tat slave no bearing on the result of the present ite cote in issue involved in the two suits tame fan identical nor are they substantially the which the learned Subordinate Judge was Perfectly justif tified ii jecti sabe, Seeion Motte cose es the application ree ghahabuddin vs. Agricultural Univsersi TSItY (Cour Copal Seta) ‘Civil Revision No.593 of 1997, tow Omar Ali Khan, Advocate Judgment Gour Gopal she against the order daneg or Rule is decd learned Subordinate 1996 passed by the Mymensingh i Judge, Ist Court, ‘Ymensingh in Money Suit No.05 Tejecting the petitioner's a -05 of 1995 section 10 of the Code Rae cation under praying for staying further proceedinee an said suit now pending Beer ar Court fal the disposal of Civil Revision No.2608 of 1992 pending before this Court. The learned pobre Judge by the impugned order seni pear somcclected the petitioner's of al i ei eteroreartateas TS RED 2. The short fact relevant for the purpose of the case is, that the opposite party as plaintiff instituted the present suit in the First Court of Subordinate Judge, Mymensingh being Money Suit No.5 of 1995, praying for a decree for an amount of Taka 2,19,738.40 as house rent from the defendant-petitioner. It has been contended by the petitioner that while he was in the employment of the Bangladesh Agricultural University, he was illegally dismissed from his service by the University authority on false charges of corruption and criminal misappropriation, following which he filed Other Class suit No.16 of 1987 in the 1st Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mymensingh challenging the order of dismissal. The suit was eventually dismissed on contest on 31-8-1991- ‘Against the aforesaid judgment and decree the iti 1 before the District petitioner took an appeal ensingh, being Other Class Appeal a Nr » it unfortunately, the said J 224 of 1991, bu . - ‘al was also dismissed on 158-92 against eal ve petitioner moved this Court and ees ‘Rele in Civil Revision No.2608 of 1992, which is pending for disposal. In the vreantime, the opposite party has filed the present suit for realisation of Taka 2,19,7384 Prepouse rent, electricity, sanitary and water ap arges from the petitioner for using andshahabuddin v: 0 a ying th tial quarter of the Occupying Ae ea i 10 31-3-1995. The University from ‘ance in the suit and setitioner entered APPA section 10 of the filed an application i praying for staying f Civil Procedure pt ‘ Code o! = f Money Suit No.5 of all further proceedings 0! the 1st. Court of 1995 pending Delon ensingh ill the Subordinate Judge, Mymensing "0 disposal of Civil Revision No.2608 0 pending before the High Court Division. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge by his impugned order dated 3-8-96 rejected the petitioner's application under section 10 CPC after hearing the parties on the finding that since the issues of the 2 proceedings are different there is no scope to stay further proceedings of the present suit. 4, Mr Omar Ali Khan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that although issues in the 2 suits are not the same and identical, still then, in the interest of justice, the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have stayed further proceedings of the present suit pending disposal of Civil Revision No.2608 of 1992 of this Court as the proceedings are inter-related. Mr. Mainul Hosein the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that the learned Subordinate Judge was perfectly right in passing the impugned order and it suffers from no legal infirmity to justify interference by this Court. 5. We heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner, perused the petitioner's application for stay and the impugned order and we find that the facts of completely different and involved therein ar substantially Provisions of Procedure. the two suits are the matters in issue € neither identical nor the same to altract the section 10 of the Code of Civil 6. Section 10 CPC provi ) CPC provides that no shall proceed with the trial of any eae which the matter in j i in issue j it substantially in Tene als directly and s. Agricultural Univsersity (Cour Copal sets with the trial of two suits | Procge matters in issue are directly ar Which 8 the same between the same Subang tt section prohibits the trial gy Pte, ny? litigations in respect of the ao Pray action, the same subject-matter ae Cause relief between the same parties the ptt Jaw being to avoid multipliciyy nt Ply the possibility of conflicting ecisio, init ag a party seeks relief under section 0 We stop further proceedings of a mj instituted suit between the sa lies squarely upon the applicant to shor! Court that a multiplicity of actions” subsequent proceeding is vexacious ana unwanted. One essential test Of th applicability of section 10 CPC is whether decision in the earlier suit will Operate as 1 judicata in the subsequent suit. Even ig applicant succeeds in proving that some dfs issues of the two suits are common but ‘others are not, still then he is not entitled to get further proceedings of the subsequent sit stayed till the disposal of the previous suit, 7. In the light of these settled princpis of law, the facts and circumstances of the ae | make it abundantly clear that the mattersit issue involved in the two suits are comply different and the decision in the previous ut will have no bearing on the result of tt Present suit as the matters in issue in the tw suits are neither identical nor are tk! substantially the same. From the matetis placed before us we are of the view Ee learned Subordinate Judge was pet justified in passing the impugned te | does not suffer from any legal infirmity for our interference under section 115(!) Code of Civil Procedure. The submission, by the learned Advocate for the Pet have no substance. oy 8. In the result, the Rule is dis! without any order as to costs. ed OY hs The order of stay earlier gra" Court stands vacated. Ed,