1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.8346 OF 2009 Satish Jagannath patil and another. Petitioners vs Suresh Digambar Patil Respondents ------ Shri Vaibhav Patil, Advocate, holding for Shri S.P.Shah, Advocate for the Petitioner. Coram : Shrihari P.Davare, J. Date : 15th September 2010. P. C. 01. By the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 14.7.2009 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhule, below Exhibit 57 in R.C.S. No.75 of 2004, be quashed and set aside. 02. Petitioner No.2 herein, namely, Shantabai had filed Special Civil Suit No.84 of 1999 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule, 2 for partition and separate possession in respect of suit properties mentioned therein. Respondent herein, namely, Suresh Digamber Patil, has filed R.C.S. No.75 of 2004 against the petitioners herein, before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhule, for the purpose of injunction and preferred an application (Exh.5) for temporary injunction, therein but the same came to be dismissed on 17.12.2004. The said plaintiff in R.C.S. No.75 of 2004, namely, Suresh Patil, preferred intervention application in earlier Special Civil Suit No.84 of 1999 and the same was allowed and he was impleaded as Defendant No.7 therein. 03. On the aforesaid background, the petitioner (original defendants in R.C.S. No. 75/2004) preferred an application below Exh. 57 in the said suit and prayed to stay the proceedings of the said suit till the decision of earlier Special Civil Suit No.84/199, contending that the properties involved in both the suits were one and the same, under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, the learned 4th Joint 3 Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhule, rejected the said application by order dated 14.7.2009 which has been impugned in the present petition. 04. Admittedly, Special Civil Suit No.84 of 199 has been filed for partition and possession of the joint family property, including the suit property in R.C.S. No.75 of 2004 which has been filed admittedly for perpetual injunction, praying to restrain the defendants from causing obstruction to the possession of the plaintiff, namely, Suresh Patil (present respondent) and, therefore, it is apparent that the prayers and the controversy in both the suits are different. Moreover, considering the nature of both the suits, it appears that the issues involved therein are not directly or substantially common and the separate trials of both the said suits would not cause any inconsistency of the judicial decisions. Hence, the learned trial judge has rightly observed that for application under Section 10 of the C.P.C., the matter in issue in both the suits should be same. But, so is not the position in the instant case. 4 05. In the circumstances, application preferred by the present petitioner below Exhibit 57 in R.C.S. No.75 of 2004 under Section 10 of the C.P.C. does not satisfy the ingredients of the said Section and, therefore, the learned trial judge has rightly rejected the said application and hence no interference is warranted therein. 06. In the result, present petition being sans merits, stands dismissed summarily. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) pnd/wp8346.09