ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---The petitioners Rabnawaz Khan and Muhammad lqbal have filed the instant writ petition against the respondents impugning the orders of the lower Courts.
2. The brief facts are that Mst. Waziran Mai, (now dead and represented by her legal heirs) brought a suit challenging the legacy of one Mst. Bakku Mai, predecessor of the parties in the Court of Civil Judge-1V, D.I. Khan. A similar suit involving landed property in District Bhakkar (Punjab) was also instituted prior to the present suit. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application under section 10 C.P.C. For staying the proceedings in the instant suit which was dismissed by Civil Judge-IV, D.I. Khan vide orders dated 6-2-2007 against which civil revision was filed which too was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge VI, D.I. Khan vide judgment dated 31-10-2007.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that another suit between the same parties regarding the same subject-matter is pending in District Bhakkar (Punjab) and if the suit pending in District D.I. Khan is not stayed, it would result in conflicting judgments.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents is of the view that both the suits between the parties are in two different Provinces and this Court has got no jurisdiction to interfere with the matter pending in the Province of Punjab.
5. We have heard arguments and gone through the record.
6. The record reveals that the civil suit between the same parties is pending in the civil Court in D.I.
Khan while similar suit is pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhakkar (Punjab) The record further reveals that the properties in both the suits are different. The property situated in District Bhakkar is a subject-matter of suit pending in that Court while the property situated in D.I. Khan is the subject of suit pending in D.I. Khan. Section 10, C.P.C. Provides that the matter in issue should be directly and substantially in issue in both the suits. It is also necessary that the subject-matter of all the suits should be the same and if the subject-matter is different, the provisions of section 10, C.P.C. Would not attract.
7. In order to appreciate the legal point involved, the provision of section 10, C.P.C. Is reproduced below:-- "(10) Stay of suit....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 other Court in Pakistan having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of Pakistan established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court."
' It is clear from the above provision that the following five conditions must be fulfilled:--
(a) the matter in issue in both the suits must be directly and substantially the same,
(b) the previously instituted suit must be pending in a Court of competent jurisdiction,
(c) the Court before which the previous suit is pending must be competent to grant the relief in the subsequent suit,
(d) both the suits must be between the same parties or their representatives, and
(e) the parties must be litigating in both the suits under the same title.
' In the case in hand the condition mentioned in (a) is not fulfilled as the subject-matter is not the same. Both the properties in both the suits are situated in different Districts and Provinces, therefore, the provisions of section 10, C.P.C. Are not applicable.
8. In short, the suit property which is subject matter in the suit pending in District Bhakkar is situated in District Bhakkar while that of D.1. Khan is situated in D.I. Khan which gives jurisdiction to different Courts i.e, one in District Bhakkar (Punjab) and the other in District D.1. Khan.
9. The result of our above discussion is that we find no merit in this revision which is hereby dismissed in limine.