1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2573/2010 Ramesh Mahadeorao Wankhede Vs. Vinayakrao Wankhade ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. P.S. Patil, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd JUNE 2010. 1] Heard Advocate Patil for the petitioner/plaintiff. His contention during pendency of an appeal challenging the order of temporary injunction passed below Exhibit 5, respondent/defendant also moved application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence because of provisions of Section 10 of the CPC that application needed to be stayed after hearing learned counsel. I find that grievance sought to be urged is that there are no changed circumstances demonstrated in the application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC. Thus, this contention has got nothing to do with Section 10 of CPC. Order XXXIX 39 Rules 1, 2 of CPC and Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC operate in all together different spheres. In the circumstances, no ground is made out to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.