(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6981 OF 2009 Harjitsingh s/o. Tirathsingh Sawhney, Age : 47 years, Occupation : Business, .. Petitioner Resident of Mun. House No. 5-1-55/1, (Original Osmanpura, Aurangabad, defendant) District : Aurangabad. versus Paramjitsingh s/o. Tirathsingh Sawhney, Age : 41 years, Occupation : Business, Resident of Mun. House No. 5-1-55, .. Respondent Osmanpura, Aurangabad, (Original District : Aurangabad. plaintiff) .......................... Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.R. Rathod, Advocate, for the respondent. .......................... (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2009. COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 4th September 2009, passed by the learned Vth Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad, below Exhibit 23 in Special Civil Suit No. 409/2008, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for stay of the said suit. 2. Mr. K.C. Sant, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the appeals arising out of the two earlier proceedings, with respect to the same subject matter, are pending before this court and, as such, the suit ought to have been stayed by the trial court. 3. Mr. A.R. Rathod, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the contrary, submits that the learned Judge of the trial court has rightly rejected the application. 4. From the perusal of the pleadings, it can be seen that the earlier proceedings filed by the present petitioner i.e. for probate and Special Civil Suit No. 379/1996 were on the basis of his exclusive claim to the gold ornaments of the mother on the basis of the will. The said claim has been rejected by the trial court in both the proceedings. However, in the present suit, the claim of the respondent plaintiff is on the basis that the property is an ancestral property and he is entitled to share in the said property. (3) 5. Apart from that, the learned Judge of the trial court has found that the application was filed at a belated stage after evidence of the plaintiff was over and was an attempt to prolong the suit. 6. In that view of the matter, no perversity could be found with the approach adopted by the learned Judge of the trial court, so as to warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp6981