1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.527 OF 2010 Murlidhar Namdeo Basalge, age: 70 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Pathardi, Tq. Kallam, District Osmanabad. Petitioner Versus 1 Dharamraj Eknath Landge, age: 60 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Pathardi, Tq. Kallam, District Osmanabad. 2 Gurling Vithal Kharade, age: 45 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Pathardi, Tq. Kallam, District Osmanabad. 3 Bhagwat Dharamraj Landge, age: 40 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Pathardi, Tq. Kallam, District Osmanabad. 4 Dattu Dharamraj Landge, age: 35 years, Occ: Agril., R/o as above. Respondents Mr.S.P.Brahme, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.R.Sontakke Patil, advocate for Respondents. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 20 th September, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 2 1 Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 The order dated 5th October 2009, passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kallam, below Exhibit-21 in Regular Civil Suit No. 269/1999, is subject matter of challenge in this petition. 3 Petitioner herein – original plaintiff in the suit had tendered an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order of stay of the suit instituted by petitioner – plaintiff, during pendency and disposal of Second Appeal No.342/1996 pending before this Court, wherein parties to the litigation are one and the same, so also subject matter of dispute is also the property involved in the suit. The trial Court, however, was not convinced with the contention raised by the petitioner – plaintiff and proceeded to reject the application. 4 It has been pointed out that one Regular Civil Suit No. 112/79 was presented by respondents herein claiming decree of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction against petitioner – plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.269/1999. Suit presented by respondents was decreed by the trial Court on 12.02.1987, which decree has been confirmed by the first appellate Court. Petitioner herein, defendant in the said suit, has raised challenge to the decree passed by the Courts below in Second Appeal No.342/1996. One of the issue involved in the suit instituted earlier by defendants – respondents herein was in respect of ownership of the predecessor-in-title of plaintiffs in the said suit. The other issue involved in the said suit was in respect of 3 entitlement of defendant no.5 in the said suit i.e. Namdev to have share in the disputed property. The question in respect of validity of compromise decree in Regular Civil Suit No.96/57 also arose for consideration in the suit decided earlier. Identical issues also crop up in the suit instituted by petitioner herein, being Regular Civil Suit No. 269/1999. Said suit, instituted at later point of time, also relates to same property and parties to the litigation are also one and the same. 5 In this view of the matter, it would be appropriate for the trial Court to stay the suit instituted at later point of time. The order passed by the trial Court appears to be improper and, therefore, needs to be quashed and set aside. 6 Writ Petition is, thus, allowed, Order passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kallam, below Exhibit-21 in Regular Civil Suit No.269/1999 on 05.10.2009, is quashed and set aside and the application tendered by petitioner herein – original plaintiff shall be deemed to have been allowed. 7 Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp52710