1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1718 OF 2009 Babusheth Pukhraj Jain .. Petitioner versus Satish Govind Jagtap & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar for the petitioner. Mr.U.B.Nighot for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 8th September 2009. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The petitioner is the 2nd defendant in a suit filed by the 1st to 3rd respondents. In the suit filed by the 1st to 3rd respondents for eviction under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 an application for stay under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was made by the petitioner. It must be stated here that there was a earlier suit filed by the petitioner and 4th respondent who is the 1st defendant in the present suit. The said suit was partly decreed. In the application made by the petitioner before the trial Court a prayer was made that the proceeding of the suit filed by the 1st to 3rd respondents be stayed till the disposal of an appeal preferred by the petitioner and 4th respondent against that part of the decree passed by the trial Court by which claim of the petitioner and the 4th respondent was partly 2 rejected. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 2. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, considering the frame of both the suits, it is obvious that section 10 of the said Code could not have been invoked for staying the present suit filed by the 1st to 3rd respondents for eviction. To that extent, no fault can be found with the impugned order. However, while deciding the application specifically made under section 10 of the said Code, plea of res judicata could not have been decided. The observations made by the trial Court in the impugned order as regards the said plea will have to be treated as the only tenative observations. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)