1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1560 OF 2008 (Manoj Kailash Sharma and another .v. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri P.K. Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. 01ST AUGUST, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The order dated 12.02.2008 below Exh.43 refusing stay of the Special Civil Suit No.968/1999 at the instance of the petitioners, is challenged in the present writ petition. Shri P.K. Mishra, the learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that in the suit filed by the petitioners namely Special Civil Suit No.122/1999 and a suit bearing Special Civil Suit No. 968/1999 for recovery of amount due and mandatory injunction is filed by the respondent, the basis of claim of both the parties was the agreement for obtaining finance. This being the position, according to Shri Mishra, the subject matter of both the suits is same, the parties are same and, therefore, the suit ought to be stayed. 2 Per contra, Shri R.S. Sundarma, the learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and argued that the suit filed by the respondent is in the Court at Nagpur as against the suit filed by the petitioners at Chandrapur. The reliefs sought by the petitioners in their suit are for claiming declaration about the illegal seizure of bus that was made by the respondent, damages and further permanent injunction. In his submission, the suit filed by the respondent is only for recovery of balance amount which the company is entitled to recover even despite the sale of the bus by the company after seizure. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. I have seen the impugned order as well as the copies of plaints placed before me in the suit and the reliefs claimed therein. It may be true that the agreement between the parties in the matter of grant of finance for purchase of bus was the foundation for laying the claim. But the fact remains that the reliefs claimed by the petitioners in their suit are totally different and absolutely nothing to do with the reliefs claimed by the respondent in the suit for recovery for balance amount which has not been paid due to default in the installment. Shri Mishra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the judgment in 3 the case of M/s. Chitivalasa Jute Mills .v. M/s. Jaypee Rewa Cement (reported in AIR 2004 SC 1687) particularly to para 9 thereof. Perusal of para 9 of the said judgment would reveal that the issues arising therein were substantially common, which is not the fact in the instant case, inasmuch as the petitioners claimed that the seizure of the bus was illegal and consequential relief of damages. In the suit filed by the respondent, what is prayed for is the recovery of money, remaining balance because of the defaults in the payment of installment. The said ruling has no applicability in the instant case. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the present petition. The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners are permitted to take other steps as are permissible in law. JUDGE *rrg.