{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.73 OF 2010 Ramrao s/o Rangnathrao Khadke & others APPLICANTS VERSUS Gulam Mehboob s/o Abdul Khaliq & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for applicants Mr. Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa, Advocate for respondent No.1 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 16th April 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this Civil Revision Application, the applicants, who are defendants No.7 to 9 in Wakf Suit No.131/2007, have assailed the order dated 06.03.2010. By the impugned order the Presiding Officer Wakf Tribunal, Aurangabad has rejected the application (Exhibit-78) for stay . 2. Heard learned counsel for applicants followed by the submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.1 who had filed caveat and hence appeared before issuance of notice. 3. According to learned counsel for the applicants, present respondent No.1, had earlier filed Wakf Suit No.33/2003 against the predecessor of applicants for declaration, recovery of {2} possession and for perpetual injunction in respect of property survey No.326/B and the said suit was dismissed and hence present respondent No.1 has preferred Civil Revision Application No.200/2004, which is admitted by this Court and pending for final hearing. According to learned counsel for the applicants, as the property, subject matter of the Wakf Suit No.33/2003 and the reliefs claimed thereunder and the property subject matter of Wakf Suit No.131/2007 are the same and hence he had prayed for stay to the proceedings in suit No.131/2007 under the provisions of section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code by filing application Exhibit-78. According to learned counsel for the applicants, the application moved by the applicants (Exhibit-78) has been wrongly rejected and hence the present Civil Revision Application has been preferred. 4. While opposing these submissions, it is brought to my notice by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the application (Exhibit-78) is moved by the applicants at a belated stage after evidence of respondent No.1, plaintiff, so also evidence of witness No.1 on behalf of present applicants is over and when the applicants were to examine another witness. It is also contended that the suit is filed in respect of another property i.e. Survey No. 326/A and not in respect of property survey No.326/B for which earlier suit No.33/2003 was filed. Therefore, it is urged that considering all these aspects, no interference is called for in the order impugned and hence prayed for rejection of the civil revision {3} application. 5. While considering these submissions, it is necessary to consider the text of section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code reads thus - “10. Stay of suit – No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court. Explanation – The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.” 6. In the light of section 10, it is necessary to consider the findings recorded in unnumbered para 2 of the impugned order. It is observed by the learner lower court “That the suit No. 33/2003 and suit No.44/2003 were filed by plaintiffs against some one other defendants in respect of different description of suit property decided disposed off by my Learned predecessor long back and of any those Judgment in suits those defendants filed CRA No. 200/2004 before the Hon’ble High Court and is pending since long” 7. During the course of submissions, my attention is {4} drawn towards the description of the property, subject matter of the previous suits, which were dismissed and against which CRA No.200/2004 is filed, which is admitted and pending for final hearing before this Court. From the description of the property, as disclosed, it is clear that the CRA No.200/2004 is not in respect of the same property. Considering the text of section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, in respect of stay to the suit, the subject matter of the suit in the earlier litigation must be between the same parties or the parties who claim through the parties to the earlier litigation and then only the subsequent proceedings require to be stayed as per the Provisions of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Considering the observations in unnumbered para No.2 and 3 of the impugned order in respect of exact point in dispute between the parties, it appears that the by the reasoned order the application is rejected. Considering the scope of section 10, I do not find any fault with the impugned order and hence no interference is required in the impugned order in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 8. In the result, the civil revision application, which is sans merits, stands rejected, summarily. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/cra73-10