1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4386 OF 2009. Mohd. Tausif Mohd. Yusuf -: versus :- Kumar Niraj Jawahar Bhargav and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 22, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Akok Daga, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri N. Gaikwad, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Petitioner /defendant moved an application under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, in view of two earlier adjudication pointing out that appeal against the same was pending. Respondent no.3 in his reply to that application stated that the findings therein are bound to operate as res-judicata. However, that application was rejected and the trial Court found that more than one property was involved in Regular Civil Suit No.16/2007 before it and hence rejected the application. Petitioner then approached this Court with contention that other properties involved in Regular Civil Suit No.16/2007 are acquired because of the properties which formed subject matter of earlier two suits/pending appeals. 2 I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It is not necessary for this Court to go into details in view of the subsequent events. The impugned order is on Application under Section 10 of C.P.C. dated 20.07.2009 and on 17.08.2009 present respondent nos. 1 and 2 who are plaintiffs moved application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., contending that in view of the earlier adjudication, the findings in that respect operated as res judicata. Because of its earlier order on application under Section 10 of C.P.C. that amendment has been rejected by the trial Court. The learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 states that if application is allowed and amendment is allowed to be incorporated in the plaint, the prayer in application under Section 10 can be directed to be re-considered by the trial Court. Learned counsel for petitioner/original defendant in suit has no objection if that amendment is allowed and application under Section 10 C.P.C., is permitted to be re-considered. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 also has no objection. In this situation, respondent nos. 1 and 2 [original plaintiffs] are permitted to carry out amendment by adding paragraph 6A in their plaint as sought for vide their amendment application dated 17.08.2009, for that purpose with consent of the parties order passed on that application is set aside, though that order has not been challenged before this Court expressly and its copy is not before the court. The amendment be carried out by 30.04.2010. Liberty to other parties to carry out consequential amendment, if any, by 09.06.2010. 3 The impugned order dated 20.07.2009 passed below Exh.53 in Regular Civil Suit No. 16/2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. That application Exh.53 is restored back to file of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ashti. The trial Court shall rehear the parties and decide the same again in accordance with law, as early as possible and in any case by 30.06.2010. The trial Court shall not be influenced by its earlier order passed in the matter. Writ Petition is thus allowed. Rule accordingly, however, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.