1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8576 OF 2009 Vishal s/o Jaikumar Chandak Petitioner Versus Sai Printers, through Proprietor Maleshyam Anjyya Ige Respondent Mr.R.R.Chandak, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.C.Mayure, advocate for Respondent CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 30th April, 2010. P.C.: 1 An application tendered by petitioner seeking stay of suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been turned down by 2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, in view of the order dated 04.08.2009, passed below Exhibit-10 in Special Civil Suit No.54/2009. Said order is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 2 It transpires that between the same parties, a suit is instituted by petitioner – original plaintiff, being Special Civil Suit No.5/2009 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon, claiming decree of specific performance of an agreement in respect of Xerox machine and same is pending. Respondent-defendant has presented Special Civil Suit No.54/2009 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, claiming recovery of an amount of Rs.1,12,991/- along with interest. Respondent herein – plaintiff in 2 the suit has claimed recovery of amount towards bill payable by petitioner herein for the job work executed by Respondent. The contentions raised in both the suits appear to be different. The cause of action for institution of suit is also different. The earlier suit is presented by petitioner herein in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon, in respect of specific performance of agreement based on cause of action accrued in third week of October 2008 at Khamgaon. Whereas, in the subsequent suit, cause of action is stated to have occurred on 24.12.2008. Thus, issues, which are required to be adjudicated, although parties are same, cannot be said to be similar. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates stay of the suit, which has been instituted at later point of time when the matter in issue in the earlier instituted suit is directly and substantially same in the subsequent suit and between same parties. In the instant matter, matter in dispute in both the suits cannot be said to be directly and substantially same. It cannot be said that issues involved in both the matters are identical. 3 In this view of the matter, trial Court was justified in turning down the request made by petitioner for stay of the suit. In exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for. Petition is devoid of substance. 4 Writ Petition, therefore, stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wpwp857609