1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8391 OF 2010 Ferring Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory, Dr.Ashok Dattatray Alate, Managing Director of the petitioner Company, having its Registered Office at 403, Sigma Technology Street, Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076. Petitioner Versus Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., having its Registered office at Tandalja Akota Road, Vadodara-390020, Gujarat and its Administrative Office at 17-B, Mahal Industrial Estate, Mahakali Caves Road, Chakla, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 093. Respondent Mr.S.G.Ladda, advocate for petitioner. Mr.H.W.Kane, advocate with Mr.S.B.Deshpande, Mr.Swapnil Joshi and Mr.S.S.Patunkar, advocates i/by J.P.Legal Associates for Respondent. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. Reserved on: 20 th September, 2010. Pronounced on: 19 th October, 2010. ORDER: 2 1 An application was tendered by the petitioner – original defendant requesting the Court to frame a preliminary issue of jurisdiction and same be heard and decided by the Court as provided under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 The trial Court, while rejecting the application, has observed that the objection raised in the application as regards jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit has been dealt with in detail while considering application at Exhibit-13 and as such, the application does not deserve any consideration. The trial Court, therefore, proceeded to reject the application in view of the order passed on 24.07.2010. 3 The order passed below Exhibit-13 by the District Court was subjected to challenge in Writ Petition No.6007 of 2010. Said writ petition has been heard by this Court and same has been dismissed. The trial Court as well as this Court has considered the issue of jurisdiction to deal with the suit by the trial Court, in detail. In view of the order passed below Exhibit-13 by the trial Court and further in view of confirmation of the said order by this Court while dealing with Writ Petition No.6007 of 2010, instant petition does not call for any interference. 4 Reliance also can be placed on the judgment in the matter of C.V.Rajendran and another Vs. N.M.Muhammed Kunhi, reported in AIR 2003 SC 649, wherein it has been observed 3 that: “Principle of res judicata applies as between two stages in the same litigation so that if an issue has been decided at an earlier stage against a party, it cannot be allowed to be re- agitated by him at a subsequent stage in the same suit or proceeding. 5 In view of decision on the issue by the District Court while dealing with application at Exhibit-13 as well as in view of decision rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.6007/2010, instant petition does not deserve any consideration. 6 Writ Petition, therefore, stands rejected. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp839110