( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5650 OF 2008 Parashram s/o Shankar Chumble Since deceased by L.Rs. Laxmibai w/o Parasram Chumble and others. PETITIONERS VERSUS Walmik s/o Shankar Chumble and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. N.R. Solunke, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa, advocate for respondent No.1. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 17th July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner filed suit (R.C.S. No. 237/1981) for injunction simplicitor. He asserted that he is in lawful possession of the land in question. He also claimed that his possession is referable to a private lease-deed styled as “Thoka-Patra” dated 28-07-1981. The original defendant No. 2 also filed counter suit bearing R.C.S. No. 249/1981 for injunction simplicitor alleging that he is in possession of part of the suit land. He ( 2 ) also claimed to be a tenant. The subsequent suit was stayed under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that after the evidence was led by the petitioner and everything was over, tenancy issues were framed as Issue No. 1A and 1B. The issues were referred to the Tenancy Tribunal. The petitioner failed to take on record legal representatives of deceased defendant No. 1 Awdabai in his suit. The defendant No. 2 also did not take any such steps. Therefore, by letter dated 06-03-2002 (Exh-41), the Tahsildar informed the Court that the inquiry proceedings are kept closed i.e. in abeyance due to failure of the parties to produce the certificate about legal heirship of the deceased parties. Mr. Solunke states that subsequently, the plaintiff also died. 4. The learned Civil Judge decided to proceed with the suit in view of the fact that it is pending since about 27 years. ( 3 ) 5. Be it noted that the suits are only for injunction simplicitor and as such, the only material issue involved in both the suits is whether the plaintiff of the concerned suit is in lawful possession over the suit property and that the other side obstructed such possession. The issue of tenancy may not be necessary in such suit in as much as coincidentally, the parties may refer to the tenancy rights for collateral purposes. The trial Court is justified, therefore, in proceeding with the suit in as much as the parties did not lead evidence before the Tahsildar and appropriately take steps to get the tenancy issue decided. The issues No. 1A and 1B shall be, therefore, deleted and both the suits may be tried together by amalgamating them in view of “M/s P.T. Anklesarai & Co. v. Union of India” (1974 Mh.L.J. 334). In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP5650-08 ( 4 )