IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2551 OF 2009 Kamal Laxman Vichare ..Petitioner Vs. Laxman Keshavrao Vichare ..Respondent Mr.J.M.Puranik, Advocate for petitioner. None for respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd April, 2009. P.C. 1 Petitioner is challenging the order below Exhibit 81 in Marriage Petition No.222/2001. 2 It is fairly stated that during the pendency of Exhibit 81 the petition filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights being Marriage M.J.Petition No.A-566 of 2000 has been decreed by the Family Court, Mumbai on 28th October, 2005. In these circumstances, now, it cannot be said that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is attracted. In the light of this statement, the application made before the trial court itself was infructuous on the date when the impugned order of dismissal came to be pronounced. Therefore, there will be no question of the petitioner being prevented from raising appropriate pleas including that the Petition No.222/2001 is barred by principles of res-judicata or Analoguous thereto. Leaving open all pleas and remedies to raise them Intact, this petition is disposed of as infructuous. 3 Needless to state that trial court will allow the petitioner to raise plea of res-judicata during the course of proceedings and I have no doubt that the petitioner would be permitted to urge that the petition in question to be dismissed on the basis of above mentioned principles. All pleas in that behalf of both sides are kept open. [ S.C.DHARMADHIKARI , J.] wp2551-09