1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 87/2011 (Hareshkumar Mansukhlalji Parekh VERSUS Krushnarao Zitruji Waghmare) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.V. Sohoni, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 12 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the 15th Joint civil Judge (Junior Division), Wardha on 15.09.2010 allowing an application filed by the respondent and staying the Regular Civil Suit No.183/2009 filed by the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had previously filed Regular Civil Suit No.68/1998 against the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and possession. Similarly, Special Civil Suit No.216/1996 was filed by one Sk. Gulab for declaration of ownership in respect of the same suit property and for cancellation of sale-deed dated 06.05.1996 executed in favour of the present petitioner. It is necessary to note that Sk. Gulab withdrew Special Civil Suit No.216/1996 filed against the present petitioner. However, the present respondent was also a party to that suit and he had filed a counter claim in Special Civil Suit No.216/1996 seeking a relief of specific performance of contract of sale of suit property against Sk. Gulab. It appears that both the suits 2 i.e. Regular Civil Suit Nos.68/1998 and Special Civil Suit No.216/1998 were decided by the trial Court by a common judgment and the trial Court decreed the suit of the petitioner bearing Regular Civil Suit No.68/1998 for eviction and arrears of rent. While decreeing the suit of the petitioner, the trial Court dismissed the counter claim filed by the respondent against Sk. Gulab seeking specific performance of contract of sale of the suit property. The respondent had challenged the common judgment passed by the trial Court in an appeal before this Court. This court has, by an order dated15.05.2010, stayed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the petitioner for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent, with the result that the respondent is not liable to pay the arrears of rent to the petitioner during the pendency of the first appeal. In this background, when the present suit was filed by the petitioner against the respondent for seeking the arrears of rent, an application was moved by the respondent seeking a stay of the suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 15.09.2010, stayed the Regular Civil Suit No.183/2009 filed by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it cannot be said that the trial Court committed any error whatsoever in allowing the application filed by the respondent and staying the suit filed by the petitioner, by the impugned order dated 15.09.2010. The trial Court rightly held that the dispute related to the same property and the parties to the dispute were also the same. The trial Court held that the subject matter as well as the controversy 3 involved in the previous suit and the present suit was almost identical and since the judgment passed by the trial Court in the previous suit was stayed by the High Court in a first appeal filed by the respondent, it was necessary to stay the present suit so as to avoid any conflicting decisions on the similar issues involved in the previous suit and the present suit. The order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any error, much less, any jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE