1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 660/2009 (Mukundrao Sitaram Balkhade VERSUS Akola Municipal Corporation) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.P. Panpalia, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kiran Malokar, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 17, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the 11th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Akola on 13.01.2009 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for staying Regular Civil Suit No.303/2006. It is the case of the petitioner that the issue about the legality of the construction made by the petitioner involved in the present suit was also involved in Regular Civil Suit No.615/2001 filed by the neighbour of the petitioner against him. In the said suit, an issue was also framed about the Municipal Council being a necessary 2 party to the same. It is the case of the petitioner that the issue about the legality or otherwise of the construction and encroachment by the petitioner being involved in Regular Civil Suit No.615/2001, it is necessary to stay the Regular Civil Suit No. 303/2006. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was, however, dismissed by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 13.01.2009. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the impugned order. No fault can be found with the order passed by the trial Court on 13.01.2009 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. The trial Court rightly observed that the parties to both the suits were different and in the instant suit, the Municipal Council was the party. The Court also held that the Municipal Council was an autonomous body and was entitled to prove that the construction was not in accordance with the 3 rules and regulations. It appears that the plaintiff merely desired to prolong the matter as the plaintiff had already obtained the relief of injunction from the Court. The reasons recorded by the trial Court for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner are extremely just and proper and the order calls for no interference in exercise of the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE