1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1480/2010. Madhukar Laxman Meshram -: versus :- Smt. Sanghmitra Haridas Bhorjare and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 30, 2010. Heard Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, learned counsel for petitioner. Present respondent no.3 has filed Civil Suit No. 10/2007 against present petitioner and respondent nos. 1 and 2 for specific performance. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 have unequivocally accepted the claim made in the suit and petitioner has disputed only the consideration, though agreement is not in dispute. Thereafter respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed Regular Civil Suit No.2/2008 against petitioner for partition and separate possession. Contention of petitioner is having agreed to execute sale deed in favour of respondent no.3 in Regular Civil Suit No.10/2007 they are estopped from filing Regular Civil Suit No.2/2008 for partition and separate possession. In any case according to him because of that admission, they have no locus to maintain such suit. In view of this position an application 2 under Section 10 of C.P.C., was moved by him in Regular Civil Suit No.2/2008 seeking stay of that suit. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tumsar has rejected that application on 17.09.2009 after noticing the facts and also after noticing that parties to both the suits are different and subject matter is also different. Shri Kshirsagar, learned counsel, before this Court has relied upon the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 of Civil Procedure Code to urge that as the claim of respondent no.3 is accepted by respondent nos. 1 and 2 they have given up their share in the family property and hence suit for partition by them could not be prosecuted further. In any case according to him till the adjudication of Regular Civil Suit No.10/2007 such consideration of claim for partition cannot be legally permitted. The application before the trial Court was under Section 10 of C.P.C. The argument clearly show absence of ingredients of that Section. The decree passed in any one of the suit cannot militate with the decree passed in any other suit. No case is made out warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.