1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7606 OF 2009 Vishvambhar Bhau More, age 78 years, Occ. Agril, r/o Ter, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. Petitioner V E R S U S 1. Ganpati s/o Jyotiba Wagh, age 65 yrs, Occ. Agri r/o Ter, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Vinayak s/o Jyotiba Wagh, age 55 yrs, Occ. Agri, R/o. Ter, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. Respondents Shri R.K. Ashtekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 13TH JANUARY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard respective counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the trial court below Exh.165 in RCS No. 346/2002 under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application has been rejected by the trial court by order passed on July 18, 2009. The petitioner in this application, filed on January 20, 2009, has pleaded that he is plaintiff in the suit and has filed the suit for declaration of ownership of the land S.No.80/1 admeasuring 7 acres 22 2 gunthas and for perpetual injunction against the respondents/defendants. It is further pleaded in this application that during the pendency of this RCA No. 346/2002 filed by the present petitioner, the defendants and their mother have filed another RCS No.364/2003 pertaining to land S.No.80/1 and other lands. In this suit they have sought declaration that sale deed in favour of the present petitioners/plaintiff is not binding on them. Plaintif/petitioner has tried to seek stay to the hearing of RCS No.364/2003, a subsequent suit filed by the respondents/defendants, however, could not succeed. Said suit i.e RCS 364/2003 has been heard, and partly decreed by the trial court. Said decree was challenged by filing RCA No.9/2008 by the present petitioner in the first appellate Court. In this application petitioners have also mentioned in pleadings that parties to RCS No.364/2003 i.e subsequently filed suit and parties in RCS No.346/2002 filed by the present petitioners are same. According to petitioner/plaintiff because of the disposal of RCS No.364/2003 earlier suit i.e RCS No.346/2002 filed by the petitioner is likely to be prejudiced. Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, trial court ought to have stayed the hearing of the RCS No.346/2002. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that RCA No.9/2008 is continuation of RCS No.364/2003. He also pointed out issues framed and decided by the trial court in Rcs No. 364/2003. 3. Counsel appearing for the respondent supports the order impugned. Trial Court rightly rejected the application holding that parties and 3 suit property in both the suits are different. Therefore section 10 has no application. In my view, even if there is no harm, as contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in staying petitioner’s RCS No.346/2002, it is not advisable to do so. The counsel for the respondents on instruction submitted that present petitioner is protracting the hearing of RCS No. 346/2002 since last one year. 4. I see no ground for interference in extra ordinary jurisdiction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order. Impugned order is legal and proper. 5. Petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs. Rule discharged. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that RCA No.9/2008 which is pending on the file of learned District Judge Osmanabad be expedited. Counsel for the respondent submits that apart from the present respondents, some other parties are not before this court who are appearing in appeal. I do not see any difficulty in directing and, therefore, direct the District Judge, Osmanabad to decide and dispose of RCA No.9/2008 as expeditiously as possible preferably on/or before 31.12.2010. Petitioner to take hamdast of this writ and make it available to the District Judge, Osmanabad. ( S. B. DESHMUKH, J. ) aaa/7606.09 *****