1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 679 OF 2010 Madhukar s/o. Pandurang Kanherkar and others ....Petitioners. Versus Dattatraya Khanderao Kulkarni ....Respondent. Shri. N.V. Gaware, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri. S.D. Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 8th April, 2010 PER COURT : 1. The order passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shrigonda on 14.12.2009 below Exh. 29 in Regular Civil Suit No. 22/2009 is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 22/2009 and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in Special Civil Suit No. 15/2008. The respondent herein has presented Special Civil Suit No. 15/2008, claiming a decree in respect of preferential right of his purchase and it is 2 also prayed by the respondent/original plaintiff that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the said suit be directed to execute the sale deed in respect of the disputed property in favour of plaintiff i.e. respondent herein. An another suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 22/2009 is presented by the petitioners herein against the respondent, seeking a decree of perpetual injunction. The parties to both the suits are one and the same as well as the subject matter of the suit is also same. Thus, an application came to be presented by the respondent for stay of proceedings in a suit instituted at later point of time. The Trial Court considered the application and directed stay to the proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No. 22/2009 until disposal of Special Civil Suit No. 15/2008. 3. I have perused the order and heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties. In my opinion the order is in conformity with Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code and therefore, does not call for any interference. 4. An apprehension is expression by the petitioner that as a result of proceedings in R.C.S. No. 22/2009, the application tendered by the petitioner, seeking order of temporary injunction against the respondent herein will not be considered by the Trial Court. The apprehension expressed is misplaced for the reasons that even though the proceedings in the suit are stayed, the application seeking interim order can be considered by the Trial Court on its own merits. Reliance can be placed 3 on decision in the matter of Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Co- operative Marketing Federation Ltd., reported in 1998 (4) Bom. C.R. 165 and in the matter of Sujanbai w/o. Haribhau Kakde and others v. Motiram Gopal Saraf and another reported in 1980 (0) BCI 72. 5. In this view of the matter the Trial Court is directed to consider the application for interim relief, if any, tendered by the petitioner herein in Regular Civil Suit No. 22/2009 for grant of temporary injunction on its own merits and in accordance with provision of law. With the above observations, the petition stands rejected. [ R.M. BORDE, J. ] ssc/wp679.10