gst 1 wp6388.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 6388 OF 2010. Dnyanesh Shashikant Limaye.. .... .... ..Petitioner. V/s Ajit Vinayak Limaye.. ... ... ..Respondent. Mr.Sandeep A. Bhagwat, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.Vaibhav Patankar, Adv. For the respondent. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 8th February, 2011 PC: Byway of present petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 7.7.2010 vide which the application filed by the petitioner for stay to Suit No. 536/07 came to be rejected. 2. For invoking jurisdiction under section 10 of Code of Civil Procedure and subsequently filing suit it is necessary that following ingredients are satisfied: i) That the suit which is sought to be stayed and the subsequent suit that the parties in both suites are either the same or that they or any of them are claiming under the same title where such suit is pending; ii) That the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in both suits. 3. Learned trial Court has found that the earlier suit being Regular Civil Suit No.1741/03 was filed by the original plaintiff Smt.Usha Limaye for declaration and injunction in respect of apartment No.3. That the suit premises had come to the share of her husband in the partition and after his death she has acquired lawful title to it as legal heir of the deceased husband. After her death gst 2 wp6388.10.sxw the present respondent was brought as her legal heir on 21.8.2007 o the basis of alleged will executed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. 4. The suit which is sought to be stayed is filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein challenging that the will executed by Smt.Usha is not executed in faovur of the defendant-petitioner herein. An application for stay of the suit was made by the petitioner. Since the same is rejected the present petition is filed. 5. It can thus be clearly seen that the issue in question in earlier suit is as to whether the defendant Usha’s husband was entitled to a share i.e. the said apartment in view of oral partition and whether the said Smt.Usha had acquired lawful title to the suit premises. In so far as the suit which is sought to be stayed is concerned, the question involved is as to whether alleged will executed by Smt.Usha in favour of the defendant is valid or not. 6. In that view of the matter no perversity could be noticed with the finding of the learned trial Court that the matters in issue in RC Suit No.1741/03 and in RC Suit No.536/07 are not directly and substantially the same. 6. In that view of the matter no case is made for interference. Hence writ petition stands dismissed.