1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1391 OF 2011 (Madhavdas Rajaldas Ladhani vs. State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri G. Bapat, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.V. Bhoyar, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. -------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JUNE 15, 2011 By the above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 14/12/2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gondia whereby the application filed by the respondent nos. 3 to 5 herein under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying Regular Civil Suit No.8/2010 filed by the petitioner came to be allowed and the hearing of the said suit came to be stayed. 2 The petitioner is the original plaintiff in the said Regular Civil Suit No. 8/2010, which he has filed against the respondent/defendant nos. 3 to 5 for permanently restraining them from evicting him without following the due process of law and seeking a direction against the respondent/defendant nos. 1 and 2 not to renew the lease of the suit property without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent nos. 3 to 5 herein have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 139/2008 inter alia seeking the relief of eviction of the petitioner from the suit property on the ground that they bonafide require it. The suit property is Nazul land bearing sheet no.19, plot no.20, area 1850 sq.ft., Gondia. The respondent nos. 3 to 5 herein filed the said application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that the subject matter of the suits is inter-connected and the issues involved in the subsequent suit filed by the petitioner are directly and substantially in issue in the earlier suit. As mentioned hereinabove, the respondent nos. 3 to 5 have filed Regular Civil Suit 3 No. 139/2008 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the said land in question whereas the petitioner has filed the later suit being Regular Civil Suit No.8/2010 restraining the respondent nos. 3 to 5 from evicting the petitioner without following due process of law. The trial Court on the basis of the subject matter of the said two suits has recorded a finding that the subject matter of the two suits being inter connected, the issues in both the suits are directly and substantially overriding. In the teeth of the facts as narrated above, the impugned order of the trial Court allowing the application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be faulted with. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE khj