1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2319 OF 2009 1. Shubham Sanjay Kurumkar, Age 14 yrs., Occu. Education, Through natural guardian-mother Petititioner No. 2. 2. Sau. Kalpana Sanjay Kurumkar, Age 34 yrs., Occu. Nil., 3. Kum. Shubhangi Sanjay Kurumkar, Age 16 yrs., Occu. Education, Through natural guardian-mother Petitioner No. 2. All R/o. Vadali, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Petitioners. Versus 1. Sanjay Daulat Kurumkar, Age 38 yrs., Occu. Agri., 2. Sau. Lata Maruti Ithape, Age 41 yrs., Occu. Agri., Both R/o. Vangdari, Tq. Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Respondents. Shri. M.M. Nerlikar h/f. Shri. A.N. Lande, Advocate for petitioners. Shri. B.A. Shinde h/f. Shri. V.P. Latange, Advocate for respondent No. 2. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 30th June 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 12.1.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shrigonda below Exh. 43 in 2 Regular Civil Suit No. 32/1999, staying the proceedings of said suit. 2. The petitioners are original plaintiffs, who had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 32/1999 for partition and separate possession on 30.1.1999 against respondent No. 1, who is the original defendant No. 1. Pending the decision of this suit, on 25.2.2000 the entire property was agreed to be sold by the respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1) to respondent No. 2, who is original defendant No. 2. Hence, amendment was carried out to Regular Civil Suit No. 32/1999 by the petitioners/plaintiffs for declaration that the agreement dated 25.2.2000 is not binding upon them and the respondent No. 2 herein was added as party to the suit as defendant No. 2. 3. The respondent No. 2 filed Special Civil Suit No. 40/2003 against the respondent No. 1, seeking specific performance of contract dated 25.2.2000. The said civil suit was decreed by the Trial Court against which the respondent No. 1 has preferred First Appeal No. 189/2006. The same is pending before this Court for adjudication and the order of stay to the execution of decree is already passed and it is operative. 4. In the aforesaid background, an application, Exh. 43, was moved by the respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 2) for stay of the proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No. 32/1999, on the ground that First Appeal No. 189/2006 is pending before the Court and in the event, if this suit is 3 decided, there will be conflicting judgments. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shrigonda by his order dated 12.1.2009 stayed the proceeding of Regular Civil Suit No. 32/1999. This order is the subject matter of challenge in this petition. 5. Notice in this matter was issued for final disposal on 28.4.2009. Accordingly, Shri. Shinde, learned counsel appears for respondent No. 2. Although the appearance of Shri. S.V. Deshmukh Advocate is shown for respondent No. 1, none appears for him. Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. 6. The only ground on which the Regular Civil Suit No. 32/1999 has been stayed is that the subject matter of the Regular Civil Suit No. 32/1999 and another Special Civil Suit No. 40/2003 decided on 16.11.2005 is the same. It is held that the relief claimed in the instant suit will have bearing on the orders which shall be passed in First Appeal No. 189/2006 pending before this Court. Hence, the proceedings are stayed. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 does not dispute the position that the provisions of section 10 of C.P.C. does not apply to the application, Exh. 43. There is no provision brought to my notice, under which such an exercise can be carried out by the Trial Court, staying the suit. It may be true that the subject matter of Regular Civil Suit No. 32/1999 and that of Special Civil Suit No. 40/2003 may be same, however, 4 that cannot be the reason for staying the proceedings of the suit. Regular Civil Suit No. 32/1999 was filed on 30.1.1999 whereas the Special Civil Suit No. 40/2003 was filed subsequently. The reliefs claimed in both the suits are different. In view of this, there is no question of the decision in the Regular Civil Suit No. 32/1999, having bearing on the decision given in Special Civil Suit No. 40/2003. Even if it is assumed that it has got some bearing, it can be decided subsequently while deciding First Appeal No. 189/2006 pending before this Court. For all these reasons, the Trial Court has committed an error of jurisdiction by staying the proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No. 32/1999. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. The same needs to be quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, the instant writ petition is allowed. The order dated 12.1.2009 passed below Exh. 43 in Regular Civil Suit No. 32/1999 is hereby quashed and set aside. The application, Exh. 43, is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the decision of Regular Civil Suit No. 32/1999. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp2319.09