1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 357 OF 2009 Yakub s/o Kadarbhai Pathan ...Petitioner Versus Nasir s/o Kadarbhai Pathan and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. G.B. Rajale, advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.R. Nangare, advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by the learned C.J.J.D. Pathardi below Exh.18 in R.C.S. No. 260 of 2005. 2 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the parties involved in both the suits i.e. R.C.S. No. 29 of 2004 and R.C.S. No. 260 of 2005 are same and the landed property involved is also same, therefore, the trial court should have invoked the provisions of Section 10 of C.P.C. and ought to have stayed the suit, filed by the present petitioner till his appeal is decided, which is pending against 2 the final judgment and decree passed in R.C.S. No. 29 of 2004. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the grounds taken in the petition and annexures thereto and reported judgment of this Court in the case of Gregorio Pereira (deceased) through L.Rs. and Anr. Vs. Damazio Bento Pereira & Ors, reported in 2004 (3) All M.R. 520 and submitted that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has invited my attention to the reasons recorded by the trial court in the impugned order and submitted that after proper appreciation of the contentions of the parties and the evidence brought on record, the court has reached to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 10 of C.P.C. are not applicable to the present case, therefore, learned counsel would submit that since the main suit itself is now decided therefore, there is no question of staying further proceeding pending the suit. Therefore, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 4 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents and upon perusal of the reasons recorded in the impugned order, I am of the considered view that since R.C.S. No. 29 of 2004 is finally decided and judgment and decree passed then there is no question of further staying the proceeding in R.C.S. No. 260 of 2005. On query put by the Court, learned counsel submitted that there is no stay to the judgment and decree in R.C.S. No. 29 of 2004. 3 5 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that trial court has taken a possible view and has come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 10 of C.P.C. are not applicable in the present case and I do not find any reason to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the learned C.J.J.D. Pathardi, which is impugned in the instant petition. No interference is called for. Writ petition is dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. *****