: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.348 OF 2009 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ... Appellant V/s. Rukmani Ramvilas Lahoti & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.A. Bhalwal for Appellant Mr.K. Maheshwar for Respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 4TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The Second Appeal has been filed against the order dated 7.11.2008 passed by the District Judge, Karad dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The appeal was preferred against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karad in RCC No.12 of 2004 and the preliminary issues were framed in that suit. It was held that the suit was not barred under Order 23 Rule 1(4)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. According to the appellants herein, the plaintiffs initially had filed the suit against them under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. An application was filed by the plaintiff on 3.11.2003 for withdrawl of that suit. On 30.9.2004, the plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw the suit. It appears that while that suit was pending, the plaintiffs instituted another suit on 1.1.2004. This suit was : 2 : filed under section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. The appellants contend that the second suit could not be continued in view of the fact that two parallel proceedings cannot be permitted to proceed simultaneously. It is contended that since the second suit was instituted during the pendency of the first suit, the second suit ought to have been dismissed. 3. The learned advocate for the respondents/plaintiffs draws my attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Sridhar, 2005(1) Bom.C.R. 839 in which a similar situation had arisen. The learned Single Judge of this Court (Karnik, J.) has by relying on the judgment of this Court in Dilip Prabhakar Dingorkar v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., CRA No.1191 of 2001 decided on 18.1.2002, held thus: 8. ... The question whether a second suit filed under the Transfer of Property Act during the pendency of a suit for eviction previously filed under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act needs to be stayed is not res integra, and is already covered by an unreported decision of this Court in (Dilip Prabhakar Dingorkar v. Hindustran Petroleum Corporation Ltd., CRA No.1191 of 2001 decided on 18th January, 2002 Coram: Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J. In that case, the owner of the property had filed a suit against H.P.C. Ltd for eviction under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act. The suit as well as the appeal were dismissed and the writ petition by the owner was pending in this Court on 31st March, 2000 when the Bombay Rent Act was repealed by the Maharashtra Rent Act. ...............” 4. The learned Judge has considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. Amritlal & Co., 2001(8) SCC 397 and held that two parallel proceedings are not permitted. However, since the proceedings under the Bombay Rent Act would be under a special legislation and proceedings under the Transfer of Property Act are proceedings under the general law they cannot be considered as parallel proceedings. : 3 : 5. I am in agreement with the view taken in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Sridhar (supra) and Dilip Prabhakar Dingorkar v. Hindustran Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra). The appellate Court has, after considering these judgments, dismissed the appeal and in my view rightly. Surprisingly the appellant has chosen to file the present appeal although the same contention which is raised in the appeal had been negatived by this Court when the appellant had raised it in the case of Dilip Prabhakar Dingorkar v. Hindustran Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra). 6. In these circumstances, the present Second Appeal is dismissed.