ash 1 wp-10273.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10273 OF 2011 Saroj Lata D. Jain. .. Petitioner Vs Madhav Prasad Morarka. .. Respondent. -- Shri K.Y. Mandlik i/by M/s. Hooseini Doctor & Co for the Petitioner. Shri Anilkumar Patil for the Respondent. -- CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 8TH DECEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the Opponent in an application filed by the Respondent in the Court of Small Causes for fixation of standard rent. The Petitioner made an application before the Court of Small Causes praying that the proceedings of the said application be stayed till final disposal of the Writ Petition No. 4886 of 2005 which is pending in this Court for final disposal. A prayer in the alternative was made in the said application that the standard rent of the suit premises be determined at a rate not less that Rs.1,500/- per month. By the impugned order, the prayer for stay has been rejected. However, the Trial Court directed that the prayer made in the alternative will be considered when the Court takes up the matter for fixation of interim rent and also at the time of final hearing of the standard rent application. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that ash 2 wp-10273.11 the issue involved in the aforesaid pending Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner and the issue for adjudication in the standard rent application is the same. He, therefore, submitted that the provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are applicable. He submitted that the Writ Petition is a continuation of the earlier proceedings. 3. I have considered the submissions. A Writ Petition invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be said to be a continuation of a suit. On plain reading of Section 10 of the said Code, it will have no application. The law is well settled that when Section 10 of the said Code has no application, the Court cannot take recourse to Section 151 of the said Code for staying the proceedings. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the application for stay. Prayer made in the alternative in the application made by the Petitioner has been kept alive as indicated by Clause (2) of the impugned order. 4. Hence, no case is made out to interfere in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is rejected. 5. All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. ( A.S. OKA, J )