1 WP 9193.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9193 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders ................................ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 30/11/2011. Mr. R.A.Tambe, Advocate for the petitioner. ............................. PER COURT : 1. The present respondent has filed simplicitor Suit for injunction against the petitioner in respect of property bearing G.No. 153/3/2 admeasuring 41 R. The present petitioner filed an application U/s 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure [ For short, ‘ the Code ’ ] for stay of the Suit in view of the fact that substantive suit for partition and separate possession has been filed by the daughter of the present petitioner and the same is pending. In the said Suit, the relief is also claimed seeking declaration that the decree passed in R.C.S. 180 of 1983 is illegal, null and void. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 2. Mr. Tambe, the learned counsel for the petitioner 2 WP 9193.2011 submits that when the substantive suit is pending, then the rights of the parties would be decided in the substantive suit and the present suit would be decided thereafter. The said Suit is earlier in point of time. In view of that the provisions of Section 10 of the Code are squarely attracted. The learned counsel further contends that the observations made by the Court while passing the impugned order are also erroneous. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that after filing the present Writ Petition, the District Court has clubbed the said Suit filed by the daughter of the petitioner and the present Suit. 3. The present Suit is only for simplicitor injunction, wherein the factum of possession would play pivotal role. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed some facts and if he has, what would be its effect, would be decided by the trial Court. Now when all the Suits are clubbed together by the order of the District Judge as is submitted by the learned counsel, then in such circumstances, there is no necessity to stay the proceedings in the Suit as if the Suits are clubbed, then the evidence would be recorded simultaneously or as the parties agree to adopt the particular procedure. 4. In view of the above, there is no case made out for interference. 3 WP 9193.2011 5. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 9193.2011