1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1772 OF 2010 (Ramlal Manikrao Chaudhari & Anr. vs. Devidas Ganpatrao Padole) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JUNE 08, 2010. Heard Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner No. 2 – Ranubai purchased suit field from petitioner No.1 – Ramlal and then filed Regular Civil Suit No. 89 of 2005 to protect her possession against present respondent – Devidas and his wife Banubai. Devidas thereafter filed Regular Civil Suit No. 35 of 2006 for similar relief against the present petitioners. In that suit, the petitioners moved an application under Section 10 of CPC pointing out that against the adjudication in RCS No. 89 of 2005, Devidas has filed Regular Civil Appeal and as the controversy is pending in that appeal, proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 35 of 2006 needed to be stayed. The application was opposed by present respondent and the trial Court has rejected it after noticing that issues No. 3 & 4 framed in earlier RCS No. 89 of 2005 were not decided and further Ramlal was not party in RCS No. 89 of 2005. Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel argues that in impugned order trial Court has found that appeal is 2 continuation of suit and therefore entire challenge in RCS No. 89 of 2005 is open for consideration by appeal Court. According to her, in these circumstances, the application under Section 10 deserves to be granted as there is possibility of inconsistent findings being reached in the matter. I have considered the arguments and perused the copy of decree dated 03.12.2007 in RCS No. 89 of 2005. The said decree shows that Devidas and his wife or their servants have been restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of petitioner No. 2 till the judgment in RCS No. 35 of 2006. That judgment and decree in RCS No. 89 of 2005 has not been assailed by petitioner No. 2 further and thus she has acquiesced in it. It is, therefore, obvious that her possession is protected till the controversy is decided in RCS No. 35 of 2006. The appeal filed by the respondent against this judgment and decree does not enable petitioner No. 2 or petitioner No. 1 to contend that there is a possibility of inconsistent findings. The judgment and decree in their favour is expressly made subject to decision in RCS No. 35 of 2006 and hence in appeal by Devidas, there is no such possibility. I, therefore, do not find anything wrong with the application of mind by the Court below. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.