ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 5078 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 5078 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 5078 OF 2008 Mr.Bary (Augustine) Anton Lisbo & Ors ...Petitioners. Vs. Mr.T.R.Reddy & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.P.S.Dani for the Petitioners. Ms.G.P.Shah with Mr.Sanjiv A.Sawant for Respondent No.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 21st November, 2008. : 21st November, 2008. : 21st November, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioners have challenged the order dated 04/03/2008 whereby, their application to stay the suit is rejected. Admittedly, an application for probate certificate by M.A. NO.752 of 1998 is pending between the Defendant No.1 and others, who are claiming to be the Legal Representative of Late Fr. Marcellinus S. Nunes. 2. The present suit is for recovery of amount of the alleged liability of the said deceased. This itself, according to me cannot be the reason to stay the recovery suit as filed by the Plaintiff merely because the dispute is pending between the Plaintiff and Defendants. So far as the issues in the present suit ( 2 ) are concerned, it is different and not identical or connected. However, the defence whatsoever available with the Petitioners-Defendants just cannot be curtail at this stage. The parties are at liberty to raise appropriate defence including the issues arising out of the pleadings and material available on record. 3. Therefore, as there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order of rejection of the Petitioners Application, I am dismissing this Writ Petition, however with above observations. 4. The Writ Petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)