1 WP 8529.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8529 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. A.D.Kasliwal, Advocate for the Petitioner. ......................... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 17/11/2011. PER COURT : 1. The petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court below Exh. 60, thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner wherein it was prayed to try and decide the Spl. Civil Suit No. 374 of 2011 first and/or to stay M.A.R.J.I. No. 52 of 2008 and M.A.R.J.I. No. 235 of 2008 till the disposal of the Spl. Civil Suit No. 374 of 2011. 2. Mr. Kasliwal, the learned counsel submits that the said two ( 2 ) M.A.R.J.I. are summary proceedings. One dealing 2 WP 8529.2011 with the issuance of Probate and another about the succession. The Spl. Civil Suit No. 374 of 2011 is a substantive Suit. The learned counsel submits that no purpose would be served by deciding the said two ( 2 ) M.A.R.J.I. as the Judgments in the said two ( 2 ) M.A.R.J.I. would not operate as res-judicata in the present proceedings, whereas the Judgment and decree passed in the present Spl. Civil Suit would operate as res- judicata in the said two ( 2 ) M.A.R.J.I. The learned counsel submits that even otherwise, the parties being the same, it would be in fitness of things to conduct the present Spl. Civil Suit first. 3. In the impugned order, it has been observed by the trial Court that similar applications for stay of said two ( 2 ) M.A.R.J.I. were made by the present petitioner and the applications made in both M.A.R.J.I. for stay of the said two ( 2 ) M.A.R.J.I. were rejected and thereafter the evidence is also recorded. The said order rejecting the application for stay of the said two ( 2 ) M.A.R.J.I. have not been challenged by the petitioner and the said orders have become final. 4. No doubt, the orders passed in the said two ( 2 ) M.A.R.J.I. would not operate as res-judicata in the present Suit. But, vide the application [ Exh. 60 ], the petitioner is asking for the same relief which was not granted in the 3 WP 8529.2011 application made in the said two ( 2 ) M.A.R.J.I. More over, the Court dealing with the said Spl. Civil Suit by order in the said Spl. Civil Suit can not stay the other two ( 2 ) M.A.R.J.I. which are pending, more particularly, when the applications in the said two ( 2 ) M.A.R.J.I. for the same purpose have been rejected. 5. In light of the above, the impugned order can not be faulted with. As such, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 6. Mr. Kasliwal, the learned counsel states that as the parties are the same and the matter in issue is the same, all the three ( 3 ) proceedings be clubbed together. The petitioner is at liberty to move such an application before the appropriate Court. If such an application is moved, the appropriate Court would consider the same on its own merits. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 8529.2011