1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6164 OF 2010 Tulsiram Mahadu Shelar age 47 years, occ. agril. r/o Pokhari, Tq. Parner Dist. Ahmednagar. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 Sunita Shok Ghule age 47 years, occ. agril r/o Shivajinagar, Tq. Sangamner Dist. Ahmednagar. 2 Maniklal Motilal Gandhi age 43 years, occ. business. 3 Ashok Motilal Gandhi age 38 years, occ. business 4 Ratilal Motilal Gandhi age 29 years, occ. business 5 Sanjay Motilal Gandhi age 25 years, occ. business. Respondent nos. 2 to 5 r/o Pokhari, Tq. Parner Dist. Ahmednagar. .. RESPONDENTS 2 Mrs. M.D. Thube – Mhase, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Brahme, advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 5. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 30 th SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1 Heard. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 Application tendered by the petitioner / original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit no. 185/2007 at exh. 102 requesting the court to stay the proceedings in the suit in view of pendency of earlier suit between the parties to the litigation in respect of the same subject matter involved in the suit came to be turned down by the trial court in view of order passed on 8-7-2010. 4 The property originally belonged to defendant nos. 2 to 5. Defendant 3 nos. 2 to 5 alienated the disputed property alongwith same other property in favour of defendant no. 1 and some other purchasers who are not parties to the litigation. Defendant no.1 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff in respect of alienation of the property purchased by her from defendant nos. 2 to 5 and accepted the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. As the concerned defendant refused to perform her part of the contract and execute the sale-deed, plaintiff was required to present suit claiming specific performance of the agreement. Defendant nos. 2 to 5 have presented suit against defendant no. 1 and some other parties being Special Civil Suit no. 47/2003 wherein it is claimed by the concerned defendants that the sale-deed executed in favour of defendant no. 1 is nominal one. The concerned defendants i.e. defendant nos. 2 to 5 also claimed relief in respect of cancellation of the said transaction entered in favour of defendant no.1. Suit presented by defendant nos. 2 to 5 has already been decided and appeal raising exception to the decree passed by the trial court is presented to the High Court and the same is numbered as First Appeal no. 564/2005. The appeal presented to the High court is stated to be pending. It is contended that the decision in litigation presented earlier which is carried in appeal to the High Court will have bearing on the decision of the suit instituted by the plaintiff at later point of time and as such, considering the nature of the litigation and 4 considering the fact that both the suits relate to same subject matter, it is desirable to direct stay of further proceedings in the suit presented by the plaintiff / petitioner at later point of time. Trial court, however, proceeded to reject the application tendered by the plaintiff / petitioner herein. 5 I have perused the application as well as impugned order passed by the trial court below application exh. 102. It cannot be disputed that the decision that would be rendered in First Appeal no. 564/2005 will have a bearing on the out come of the suit instituted by the plaintiff being Special Civil Suit no. 185/2007. If the plaintiff, in the litigation instituted earlier succeeds, the claim raised by the plaintiff in the suit instituted at later point of time shall have to be turned down. Thus, in these circumstances, in view of provisions of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was obligatory on the part of the trial court to direct stay of further proceeding of the suit instituted by the plaintiff at later point of time. For the reasons stated above, instant petition deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Order passed by the Jt. Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Ahmednagar on 8-7-2010 below exh. 102 in Special Civil Suit no. 185/2007 is quashed and set aside and the application tendered by the plaintiff / petitioner at exh. 102 shall be deemed to have been allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and 5 circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 6 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/wp6164.10.odt