1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8773 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2798 OF 2009 Raghunath Jagannath Babar........ Petitioner versus Jagannath Bahu Babar & ors ........Respondent. Mr. Rajaram V. Bansode adv. for the Petitioner None for the Respondent. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 17th November, 2009. P. C.: 1. The present petitioner instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. 94/02 and sought declaration therein that the compromise decree entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants in Civil Suit No. 237/2000 is obtained by fraud. At a later point of time Civil Suit No.160/06 came to be instituted by the present respondents for perpetual injunction. The parties appears to be members of a joint family. The suit which is based on possession bearing no. 160/06 claims relief of perpetual injunction with a view to protect the possession of the plaintiff. In the suit instituted by the respondent bearing no. 160/06, the present petitioner moved an 2 application purportedly under sec. 10 of CPC with a view to seek stay of the proceedings of the suit viz. suit no.160/06. The trial court has held that the matter in issue in Civil Suit No.160/06 is not directly and substantially in issue in the previously instituted Suit bearing no. 94/02 and thus rejected the application moved by the petitioners under sec. 10. The trial court has rightly held that the main issue in Suit no. 94/02 would be as to whether the plaintiff/present petitioners establish that the compromise decree was obtained by fraud or otherwise. The said issue does not at all arise in the subsequent suit. In the subsequent suit, the only issue would be touching the possession of the plaintiff as the relief claimed is that of perpetual injunction. Thus the question about possession would not be directly and substantially an issue in suit no.94/02. Hence suit no.1660/06 cannot be stayed by operation of section 10. 2. Perused the impugned order. The same does not call for any interference. In the result the petition is summarily rejected. 3. In view of the dismissal of the petition the civil application does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)