This order will dispose of I. As. 1490 and 1506 of 1977. These applications have been made under S. 10 read with S. 151 of the Civil P C. by defendant No. 9 and defendants 4, 5, 8, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 respectively.

2. C.L Tandon, who claims to be the General Secretary of Divine Light Mission, instituted Suit No. 383 of 1975 on June 3 of that year against Shri Prem Pal Singh Rawat alias Balyogeshwar Shri Sant Ji Maharaj for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the affairs of the Divine Light Mission including collection of funds in the name of the Mission or otherwise using the Mission's name for any purpose directly or indirectly through his employees or agents. He moved an application (IA 1622 of 1975) for amendment of the plaint on 24-7-1975 contending that certain individuals under the instructions of the original defendant to the suit had started interfering with the functions of the Divine Light Mission and it had become necessary to implead them as defendants. He also proposed to bring in some more persons as pro forma defendants. The said application was allowed by Safeer, J., on 31-7-75 and the amended plaint with 37 more names added to the arrary of defendants was presented on 4-8-1975. There were consequential changes in the prayer clause too and it came to read as follows:—

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to :

(a) grant a permanent injunction, restraining defendant No. 1 from interfering in the affairs of the Divine Light Mission directly or through his agents or employees, by claiming to be its spiritual head or otherwise.

(b) Declare that defendants 22 to 38 are members of the Governing Body of Divine Light Mission and defendants Nos. 2 to 18 are not the members of the Governing Body (Karyakarni Samiti) of the Divine Light Mission.

(c) Restrain defendants Nos. 2 to 21 from interfering in the affairs of the Mission by claiming to be the members of its Governing Body or otherwise.

(d) Declare that no meeting of the General Body of the Divine Light Mission was held on 22nd March, 1975 at Jaipur or on 13th April, 1975 at Lucknow and any document purporting to be the minutes of the aforesaid meeting is a fabrication and cancel the same.

(e) restrain the defendants 1 to 21 from collecting any funds in the name of the Divine Light Mission for any purpose directly or indirectly through their employees and agents.”

3. Roshan Lal Sharma figuring as defendant No. 9 in the amended plaint filed I.A No. 1490 on 3-5-1977 for the stay of the suit. It was alleged by him that the plaintiff had sued the defendants purporting to act as General Secretary of the Divine Light Mission which was a registered society in Bihar under the Societies Registration Act while defendant No. 2 in these proceedings (Nand Kishore Prasad Verma) had filed a suit at Patna (T.S No. 129 of 1975) in the Court of the Sub-Judge I, Patna, as Planning Secretary of the said Society. According to him both the suits related to control over the affairs and property of the said Society and the matters in issue in them were directly and substantially the same. In the Patna suit defendants 2 to 18 in the suit here are alleged to be members of the Governing Body of the said Society whereas in the Delhi suit defendants 22 to 38 are stated to hold that position. In each of the suits there is a claim for declaration to that effect and similar reliefs, including an injunction restraining the contesting defendants from acting as the Governing Body have been sought. It has been averred further that the parties in the two suits are the same for all practical purposes out of a total of 38 parties in the present suit, 33 are common to the Patna suit. It has been conceded that defendant No. 1 in Delhi Suit, the youngest son of the founder of the Divine Light Mission, has not been joined as a party to the Patna suit and similarly defendants 1 to 3 in Patna suit the widow and the two eldest sons of the said founder, respectively have not been impleaded in the present suit. Apart from these, two or three other parties are not common but that is stated to be of no consequence. It has been alleged further that this Court will not possess jurisdiction to try the present suit which relates to the right of management of the Society registered and domiciled in Bihar and the plaintiff's purported registration of the Society Delhi with the name ‘Divine Light Mission’ is fraudulent and meant to deceive the devotees and the members of the public. It was urged in the application again that the Patna suit was filed on 28-5-1975 in the Court of Sub-Judge II, but on account of allocation of work amongst the Sub-Judges there it was entertained by Sub-Judge I on 3-6-1975 in the early morning. On the other hand, the present suit was instituted originally on 3-6-1975 against defendant No. 1 alone and defendants 2 to 38 were added later on by way of the amended plaint filed on 4-8-1975. It was submitted in the end that this Court's jurisdiction did not extend to the present suit and its proceeding therewith would be contrary to the provisions of S. 10 of the Code; moreover, it would be in the interest of justice to stay the present suit during the pendency of the Patna suit because otherwise conflicting decisions in the two suits might bar an effective adjudication of the matters in controversy. Almost similar allegations have been made in the other application for stay, i. e. I.A No. 1506, submitted by defendant No. 4 and others.

4. The applications were opposed by the plaintiff who urged, inter alia, that the applications did not lie because the applicants had not yet filed their written statements; the suit pending at Patna was not a previously instituted suit; the parties in the two suits were not the same; the court at Patna did not have the jurisdiction to grant the relief asked for here; the principal relief sought through the Delhi suit was not covered by the suit at Patna; none of the contesting defendants reside at Patna and the mere fact that the defendants supporting the plaintiff are residents of Patna was not sufficient to give jurisdiction to that court; the cause of action for the Patna suit arose either at Lucknow or at Jaipur where the disputed meetings are alleged to have been held and the Patna court could not, therefore, entertain the suit; though the Divine Light Mission was registered at Patna its headquarters from the very beginning had been at Delhi and it was registered as a society at Delhi as well before the present suit arose with the object of transferring even the nominal registered office to this place.

5. The learned counsel for the parties have addressed arguments only on the points which they thought to be crucial for the purpose of stay of the instant suit. For instance the matter of jurisdiction of Patna Sub-Judge has not been canvassed before me for the reason it is awaiting decision of Patna High Court. The issue of jurisdiction of this Court in respect of the present case has not in the same manner been taken up because the defendants have yet to file their written-statements. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the opposite parties' plea as to the stay of the suit cannot be entertained unless and until they file their written-statements. An application under S. 10 of the Civil P.C cannot, I must concede, be disposed of without the Court being clear as to what are the matters in issue in the two suits and the filing of the written-statement is, with that end in view, usually insisted upon. But a certified copy of the Patna plaint has been produced by the applicants and its perusal along with the plaint of the instant suit brings in full focus all the issues at which the parties are in conflict. It will be useless in this situation to put off the consideration of the relevant applications till all the parties to the suit have placed their pleadings on the record. The case reported in Rup Chand Dharam Chand v. Basant Lal Banarsi Lal (AIR 1975 Punj and Har 171) furnishes a pertinent instance where in similar circumstances filing of the written-statement was found to be unnecessary.

6. The next question that falls for determination is whether the Patna suit is the previously instituted suit. According to the applicants the suit was filed in the court of Sub-Judge II on 28-5-1975 but it was returned for presentation to Sub-Judge I because of allocation of work amongst different Judicial officers there. The Courts at Patna, they have urged, were observing summer hours at that time and the plaint was represented to Sub-Judge I at 7 a.m Vide R. 10 (2) of O. 7 of the Civil P.C when a plaint is returned the Judge endorses on the same the date of its presentation and return, the name of the party presenting it and a brief statement of the reasons for returning it. The copy of the Patna plaint filed in these proceedings does not bear any such endorsement. Rather, the verification at the foot thereof carries date 3-6-1975. It has been admitted at the Bar that after the return of the plaint certain changes were introduced in the averments bearing on jurisdiction and that is why a fresh verification had to be made on 3-6-1975. It is plain from the said undisputed facts that it was a new plaint that was filed on 3-6-1975, and the old one remained with the plaintiff.

7. There is an affidavit sworn by Swaroop Chand (defendant No. 14) to the effect that the suit was instituted at 7 a. m. on 3-6-1975. This affidavit is claimed to have been made on the basis of information received from Nand Kishore Prasad Verma responsible for presentation of the Patna suit. The applicants have arranged to file in the meantime an affidavit from Nand Kishore Prasad Verma himself and because the plaintiff here was not present at Patna at the relevant time he is not undoubtedly in a position to contradict the averments made by Swaroop Chand and Nand Kishore Prasad Verma. Although the suit at Delhi too was instituted on 3-6-1975 but the plaint could not have been presented here before 10 a.m In the circumstances the Patna suit would appear to be the previously instituted one.

8. It has been urged by Shri P.C Khanna that the two suits having been filed on the same day, the Patna suit cannot be treated as previously instituted due to its having been filed three hours or so earlier. But the Delhi suit shall have to be treated as filed subsequent to the one at Patna for other reasons too. As has already been noted, the plaintiff had impleaded Prem Pal Singh Rawat as the only defendant in the first instance. He sought amendment of his plaint through an application under O. 6, R. 17, O. 1 R. 10 and S. 151 of the Civil P.C and the amended plaint was presented on 4-8-1975. This suit shall have to be taken as instituted against the persons who joined the rank of defendants on 4-8-1975 on the aforesaid date, not on 3-6-1975. (See Ahmad loo v. Jaffar Malik, AIR 1958 J and K 21 and All India Reporter Ltd., Bombay with Branch Office at Nagpur v. Ramchandra Dhondo Datar (AIR 1961 Bom 292 at p. 299). The plaintiff is not thus in a position to Controvert the applicants' claim that Patna suit is the previously instituted one.

9. The hurdle about the prior institution of the suit was not, however, the only one to be crossed by the applicants. Section 10 of the Civil P.C provides that :—

“10. 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.”

It is evident from the language of the section that before the application thereof can be attracted to the particular case the following conditions must be satisfied :—

(a) The matter/matters in issue should be substantially the same in the two suits;

(b) The previously instituted suit should be pending in the same Court in which the subsequent suit is brought or in another court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed; and

(c) The two suits should be between the same parties or their representatives and these parties should be litigating in the two suits under the same title.

10. One of the important questions which thus arises is whether the matters in issue in Delhi and Patna suits are the same. It is not the requirement of the law that the matters or the issues involved in the two suits should be totally identical, (vide Jai Hind Iron Mart v. Tulsiram Bhagwandas. AIR 1953 Bom 117; Shorab Merwanji Modi v. Mansata Film Distributors, AIR 1957 Cal 727 and Arun General Industries Ltd. v. Rishabh Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1972 Cal 128), but they must be substantially the same. According to the applicants (see I.A 1506) the following eight questions are thrown up by the suit pending at Delhi :—

“(1) Whether the respondent No. 1 continues to be the Guru and head of the Mission. According to the answering defendants, he succeeded the late Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, founder of the Mission, and continues to hold the said position. The case of the plaintiff is that he was subsequently removed.

(2) The answering defendants are followers of defendant No. 1 and are members of the Mission. Some of them are members of the Governing Body. They deny that Shri Satya Paul Singh Rawat alias Bal Bhagwan, is head of the Mission and could be appointed in place of the defendant No. 1.

(3) Whether Shri Mataji was entitled to remove the defendant No. 1 from the spiritual office of the Guru, which he holds by virtue of nomination of the late Shri Hans Ji Maharaj, and whether he was actually removed by Shri Mataji.

(5) Whether the plaintiff and some others were not removed from the membership of Divine Light Mission at the meeting held on 22nd March, 1975 at Jaipur and the said resolution was confirmed at a meeting held on 13th April, 1975 at Lucknow.

(6) Whether the plaintiff has a locus standi to file the present suit on behalf of the Divine Light Mission registered at Patna.

(7) Whether any meeting was held at Hardwar on 13th April, 1975, as alleged in the plaint.

(8) Whether the plaintiff represents a validly constituted Governing Body.”

It will be patent from a comparative study of the two plaints that the contesting defendants in the Delhi suit claim to constitute the real governing body of the Divine Light Mission and according to them the plaintiff and the other defendants to the suit cannot boast that status whereas the plaintiff and the second set of defendants allege that it is they who constitute its legally valid governing body. As per the contesting defendants the Society registered at Bihar is the genuine Divine Light Mission whereas the plaintiff's faction contends that the registration of the Mission at Patna was formal, its headquarters had throughout been at Delhi and it had since secured registration at Delhi itself. The dispute about the validity of the meetings alleged to have been held at Jaipur and Lucknow, where defendants 1 to 11 in the Patna suit are alleged to have been removed from the membership of the Mission and consequently from the offices held by them, is also common to the two suits. But it cannot be denied that the three questions stated at the top of the applicants' list which arise in the suit at Delhi do not crop up in the litigation at Patna. The plaintiff here only has alleged that Prem Pal Singh Rawat ceased to be the head of the Mission when he was removed from that office by Shri Mataji and Shri Satya Pal Singh Rawat alias Bal Bhagwan was nominated in his stead. The plaintiffs plea that Mataji the widow of the founder of the Mission, late Shri Hans Raj Ji Maharaj, had the authority to remove Prem Pal Singh Rawat from the office of his Spiritual Successor has not been referred to anywhere in the plaint at Patna. The dispute at Patna is confined for all practical purposes to the question as to which of the two rival governing bodies should be recognised by the court. That suit is thus concerned with the branches of the controversy and leaves alone the root, i.e the office of the Guru. It is the Delhi suit alone which agitates the matter of removal of Prem Pal Singh Rawat by the patron of the Mission, Mataji, and the consequent appointment in his place of Shri Satya Pal Singh Rawat as the spiritual head of the Mission. So the applicants have failed to satisfy the very first of the criteria set down above and it has inevitably to be found that the issues in the two suits are not the same. The mere fact that the controversy about the two governing bodies, one of the major issues, is common to the two suits will not by itself serve the applicants' purpose. It was held in Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. v. Bholanath Mandanlal Sherawala (AIR 1975 Cal 411) that one of the most essential conditions of S. 10 is that the matter in issue in the later suit which is sought to be stayed must be directly and substantially in issue in the earlier suit which is pending in the same or in any other court of concurrent jurisdiction and a mere identity of some of the issues in the two suits is not sufficient to attract this section. To the same effect is the law laid down in the two earlier decisions of the Allahabad High Court, i.e Gargi Din Misra v. Debi Charan (AIR 1929 All 805) and Hathi Ram v. Hazi Mohammad (AIR 1954 All 141). One valuable touchstone for determining whether the matters in issue are directly and substantially the same is whether the decision in the prior suit will bring the principle of res judicata into operation in the subsequent suit. Because the removal of Prem Pal Singh Rawat by Mataji and the nomination in his place of Satya Pal Singh Rawat and the competence of Mataji to do the same, issues of utmost importance, are alien to the Patna suit, the disposal of the suit at Patna will not stand in the way of the trial of the said issues by the appropriate courts.

11. Furthermore, Prem Pal Singh Rawat, who is alleged by Nand Kishore Prasad Verma, Roshan Lal Sharma and the other members of their set to be the present head of the Mission is the centre of the whole controversy and he is not a party to the Patna suit. Even if his followers lose the battle at Patna, his right to assert that he continues to hold that office will remain intact. There can be no doubt about the proposition of law as propounded by the contesting defendants that S. 10 does not require complete identity of the parties but it has been held in the very case cited by them in support of this plea, Shorab Merwanji Modi v. Mansata Film Distributors (AIR 1957 Cal 727), that the same parties of which S. 10 speaks mean the parties as between whom the matter substantially in issue has arisen and has to be decided. The party most seriously interested in the litigation sought to be fought at Patna and Delhi is Prem Pal Singh Rawat and he has not been impleaded by the plaintiff of the Patna suit as a co-plaintiff or a defendant.

12. It has been argued on behalf of the applicants that even in cases where S. 10 of the Code does not strictly apply the court may invoke S. 151 for the ends of justice. But as the circumstances of this case disclose if the suit at Patna as it is at present framed is allowed to proceed and the one at Delhi is shelved the whole litigation between the parties will be futile and the crux of the conflict will remain as unresolved as ever.

13. The applications are for the foregoing reasons dismissed.

Applications dismissed.