1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1918/2011 VACCHALABAI PRADHAN & ORS ..VS.. NAMDEO BARDE & ORS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : APRIL 21, 2011. Heard Shri Gharote, the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is nothing wrong with the order passed by the trial court on 4.3.2011, holding that the petitioner's application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents / defendant nos.2 & 3 from alienating the suit property could not be considered in view of the stay granted by the Hon. Supreme Court to the proceedings before the trial court, in the said suit. It appears that the first appellate court had remanded the suit filed by the plaintiff to the trial court for deciding the same afresh on merits. The petitioner had challenged the order passed by the first appellate court in an Appeal Against Order before this court, and having failed before this court, had preferred a special leave petition. In those proceedings, the Hon. Supreme Court had stayed the further proceedings in the trial. Since the petitioners had filed the special leave petition before the Hon. Supreme Court seeking stay of the proceedings before the trial court and since the Supreme Court had granted stay to all further proceedings in the suit before the trial court, the petitioner could not have turned round and filed an application before the trial court for grant of temporary injunction against the defendant no.2 and 3. The trial court, rightly obeyed the order passed by the Hon. Supreme Court on 15.5.2008 in the Special Leave Petition and held that 2 the proceedings in the suit were stayed and the application filed by the petitioners could not be considered. It appears that the petitioners were blowing hot and cold at the same time by seeking a stay to the proceedings before the trial court and then seeking a grant of injunction against the defendants from the trial court. The trial court was justified in observing that the proceedings were stayed by the Hon. Supreme Court and hence the application could not be considered. The judgment reported in AIR 2003(6) Bombay Case Reporter Page 178 and relied by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as the judgment deals with the provisions of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure which relates to staying of the subsequent suit when the issues between the previously instituted suit and the subsequent suit are similar. The provisions of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure have no relevance or bearing to the facts of the case. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP