gst 1 wp548.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 548 OF 2011. Balaram Gana Bhokare & Ors. .. ... .... ..Petitioners. V/s Ananta A. Madhavi & Ors. .. ... .... ..Respondents. Ms.Leena Patil, Adv. For the petitioners. Mr.V.P.Sawant i/by Mr.Ajay S. Gadkari, Adv. For the respondents. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 17th March, 2011 PC: By way of present petition the petitioners challenge the order dated 21.10.2010 vide which Suit No.451/10 is directed to be stayed. 2. There are three suits with respect to the subject matter of the suit property. Regular Civil Suit No.332/06 is filed by the present petitioner for permanent injunction restraining defendants therein from interfering with the plaintiffs working in the godown constructed on the suit property. Regular Civil Suit No.146/07 is filed by respondents in the present petition along with one Suresh Madhavi against some of the petitioners. R.C.Suit No.451/10 filed by present petitioner against respondents in the present petition for injunction and for restraining respondents from interfering with their possession. An application came to be filed in RCS No.451/10 by the respondents submitting therein that since issue involved in the present suit is also directly and substantially involved in Suit Nos.332/06 and 146/07 proceedings in the present suit be stayed. Said application was allowed. 3. Learned trial Court in the order impugned has found that the subject matter i.e. suit property is the same in all the three suits. Learned trial Court has specifically found that in so far as Suit No.146/07 is concerned all the gst 2 wp548.11.sxw present defendants along with one Suresh Madhavi were the plaintiffs and many of the present petitioners were defendants therein. In that view of the matter learned trial Court found that since the subject matter of the suits was same and since most of the parties were common it was necessary to invoke the power under section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. No perversity is noticed in the said order to warrant interference. Hence writ petition is dismissed.