IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7635 OF 2008 Shri Tukaram Narayan Bamnolkar, Since deceased through his legal heirs: 1a) Smt.Taramati Tukaram Bamnolkar & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Shri Kapurchand Jawanmal Oswal, Since deceased through his legal heirs: 1.Sou.Sajanabai Motilalji Kataria & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Sagar Joshi for Petitioners. Mr.P.S.Dani for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 13, 2009. JANUARY 13, 2009. JANUARY 13, 2009. P.C. 1. Perused the Application preferred by the Petitioners before the lower Court (Exhibit 38). I am in agreement with the opinion recorded by the Court below that the substance of the ground taken in the Suit filed by the Petitioners is to question the decree passed in the earlier Suit which has : 2 : been confirmed right up to the Supreme Court on the ground that the Court decided the said Suit without pleading in relation to matters on which the decree proceeds, for which reason, it was null and void. The grievance though made regarding fraud, no material facts constituting fraud or decree being fraudulent decree, has been set out in the application or for that matter, the subsequent Suit filed by the Petitioners. Copy of the Plaint of the subsequent Suit filed by the Petitioners has not been placed on record before this Court. 2. Be that as it may, reliance placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashishkumar Das & Anr. v. Rekha Mukherjee Ashishkumar Das & Anr. v. Rekha Mukherjee Ashishkumar Das & Anr. v. Rekha Mukherjee reported in (2005) 3 SCC 442 reported in (2005) 3 SCC 442 reported in (2005) 3 SCC 442 will be of no avail to the Petitioners. Emphasis was placed on observations in Paragraph 2 of the said decision, which in fact was the agreed arrangement arrived at between the parties. In any case, on the finding recorded by the lower Court, the issue that needs to be addressed is whether merely because the Petitioners allege that the decree passed by the Civil Court in the earlier Suit which has been : 3 : confirmed right up to the Supreme Court can be said to be a fraudulent decree. To substantiate that, something more was required to be asserted by the Petitioners which is lacking. Hence, the application for staying the execution of the decree rejected by the Trial Court needs no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 3. I am in agreement with the submission of the Respondents that the attempt made by the Petitioners by instituting subsequent Suit is nothing short of abuse of process of Court. Dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.