Bombay High Court
JAYSHREE VIRBHADRA GABANEversusRACHAPPA SHANKAR GABANE AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The stay order under Section 10 CPC was improper and was quashed, and both suits were ordered to be tried simultaneously.
Summary
The respondents filed Civil Suit No.311/2019 seeking a declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction over a plot of land. The petitioner, before notices could be served, filed Civil Suit No.365/2019 seeking only a perpetual injunction over the same land. The trial court, invoking Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stayed the petitioner’s suit. The petitioner challenged this stay by filing a writ petition, and both parties agreed that the two suits should be tried together to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The High Court, after considering the submissions, quashed the stay order, allowed the writ petition, and directed the trial court to hear both suits simultaneously within twelve months, emphasizing that this would not prejudice either side and would promote a just and efficient resolution.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court was justified in staying the petitioner’s suit under Section 10 of the CPC.
- Whether the two civil suits concerning the same property should be tried together to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 10
Subjects
- civil suit
- stay order
- Section 10 CPC
- multiplicity of litigation
- perpetive injunction
- declaration of ownership
- simultaneous trial
- High Court writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:46428
1
917 WP 3372 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
917 WRIT PETITION NO. 3372 OF 2024
JAYSHREE VIRBHADRA GABANE
VERSUS
RACHAPPA SHANKAR GABANE AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. Sushant Baburao Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. N. Patne, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
…
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATED : 1st October 2026
P.C. :-
. Considering the very short controversy, the writ petition
is being disposed of at the instance of the parties at the
admission stage, as also on a common proposal at the hands
of both the sides to the Court.
2. Suffice to note, few facts could be seen as below :
a. The respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No.311 of 2019
against the present petitioner and six more persons seeking
declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect
of land admeasuring 1H 47 R in Gut No.305 situated at
Sawargaon Tal. Tuljapur, Dist. Dharashiv. The said suit came
to be filed on 13.08.2019 before the learned Trial Court.
2
917 WP 3372 OF 2024
b. Before the notices in the said suit could be served on the
present petitioner, she instituted Regular Civil Suit No.365 of
2019 in the same Court in respect of the same suit property as
referred to above seeking a decree of perpetual injunction
against the present respondents.
c. In the suit filed by the present petitioner i.e. Regular
Civil Suit No.365 of 2019, notices were served on the
defendants/present respondents who filed their written
statement. Issues came to be framed and the matter was
posted for evidence.
d. At this juncture the original plaintiffs in Regular Civil
Suit No.311 of 2019 filed an application before the Trial Court
at Exhibit 31 taking recourse to Section 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
e. It was contended that Regular Civil Suit No.365 of 2019
was filed on 20.09.2019 i.e. about 37-38 days after filing of
Regular Civil Suit No.311 of 2019 demonstrating that the suit
property in both the suits is the same one. It was sought to
stay the proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No.365 of 2019.
3
917 WP 3372 OF 2024
f. After hearing both the parties, the learned Trial Court
was pleased to grant the said application by its order dated
08.12.2023. Thus, being aggrieved by the stay of the
proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No.311 of 2019, the
petitioner is before this Court.
3. It is an apparent and undisputed fact that in both the
suits the parties are the same. In fact, in the former suit there
are some more parties. However, the suit property in both the
suits is one and the same. Pertinent to note, although both the
suits are being tried by the same Court while in the latter suit
the proceedings reached the stage of trial, notices in the
earlier suit came to be served only after the impugned order
was passed.
4. Suffice to note, the relief claimed by the respondents in
their suit i.e. the earlier suit is for a decree of declaration as to
ownership and consequential relief of perpetual injunction.
Then on the other hand as recorded above, the relief sought in
the petitioner's suit i.e. the latter suit is only to the extent of a
decree for perpetual injunction.
5. In the light of the controversy, both the learned
Advocates for the respective parties submit that considering
4
917 WP 3372 OF 2024
that although the petitioner's suit is filed hardly a few days
after the suit of the respondents, still, considering that the
latter suit has reached the stage of trial, let both the suits be
tried together by the Trial Court. They pertinently submit that
since both the suits are pending before the same Court, it
would be in the interest of justice to avoid multiplicity of
litigation and contradictory pleadings and evidence, directions
be given to the Trial Court to hear both the suits
simultaneously.
6. Giving a pragmatic thought to the request advanced by
both the sides I find that for the reasons recorded above, it
would be in the interest of justice if the impugned order is
quashed and set aside, and if the Trial Court is directed to
hear both the matters simultaneously, it would cause no
prejudice to the other side; instead, it would facilitate smooth
adjudication of the real controversy between the parties.
7. In view of this, I pass the following order:
ORDER
I. The writ petition stands allowed.
II. The impugned order dated 08.12.2023
passed by the learned Trial Court stands
quashed and set aside.
5
917 WP 3372 OF 2024
III. The learned Trial Court is requested to try
both the suits i.e. Regular Civil Suit No.311 of
2019 and Regular Civil Suit No.365 of 2019
simultaneously.
IV. Both the learned Advocates for the
respective parties submit that their clients shall
cooperate and assist the Court in early disposal
of the suits without seeking unnecessary
adjournments.
V. In view of the above, the learned Trial
Court is requested to conclude the proceedings
in both the suits within a period of twelve
months from today.
VI. The writ petition stands disposed of.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
PRW
Checking your session…