Bombay High Court

CHAMPALAL GANGADHAR PATILversusVIJAY RAVINDRANATH KABRA

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

Section 10 CPC does not apply because the suit was instituted before the parallel money‑lending proceeding, so the stay application is misconceived and must be dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, a defendant in a 2014 suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, sought a stay of that suit on the ground that a parallel proceeding under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 was pending before the District Deputy Registrar. The trial court rejected the stay application, reasoning that the suit pre‑dated the money‑lending proceeding and the petitioner had ample opportunity to defend. The petitioner argued that both matters were identical and the suit should be stayed pending the registrar’s decision, while the respondent contended that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that the registrar’s proceeding had already been stayed by a Division Bench in 2023. The High Court examined Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, which permits a stay when the same issue is concurrently pending in another suit, and held that it did not apply because the suit was instituted before the money‑lending proceeding. Consequently, the court found the stay application misconceived and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code can be invoked to stay a suit when a parallel proceeding under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act is pending, given the suit was instituted earlier.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court’s refusal to stay the suit under its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Subjects

stay of suit
Section 10 CPC
parallel proceedings
Maharashtra Money Lending Regulation Act
Article 227
specific performance
contract sale

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:7904


                                                     1                     wp 8130.25.odt

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 904 WRIT PETITION NO.8130 OF 2025

                                      Champalal Gangadhar Patil
                                                VERSUS
                                        Vijay Ravindranath Kabra

                                                  …..
                    Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V. P. Patil
                    Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Pramod Gaikwad h/f A.G. Talhar
                                                     …..

                                            CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                            Dated    : February 17, 2026


                    PER COURT :-

                    1.    Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated

                    5.4.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge J.D. Dharangaon,

                    District Jalgaon below Exhibit-108 in RCS No.16 of 2014 by

                    which petitioner’s application seeking stay to the proceeding in

                    the suit has been rejected.


                    2.    The petitioner is defendant in RCS No.16 of 2014. Suit

                    is   instituted    by     respondent/plaintiff   seeking   specific

                    performance of contract based on agreement to sale dated

                    5.12.2011.    While said suit is pending petitioner/defendant

                    initiated proceeding before the District Deputy Registrar,

                    Jalgaon under the provisions of Maharashtra Money Lending
                              2                      wp 8130.25.odt

Act. Petitioner filed an application below Exhibit-108 seeking

stay to the proceeding in suit as proceeding before District

Deputy Registrar in respect of same subject matter is going on.

Trial Court refused to entertain the application on the ground

that suit is filed in the year 2014 and reached at advanced

stage and petitioner/defendant has every opportunity to

defend the suit and there is no necessity to stay the proceeding

in the suit.


3.       Mr. Patil, learned advocate appearing for petitioner

submits that subject matter of the suit and proceeding pending

before District Deputy Registrar in Money Lending Act is one

and the same. Agreement to sale, which is subject matter of

suit is also subject matter of proceeding under Money Lending

Act. He would further urge that Trial Court ought to have

entertained the application and stayed proceeding in the suit

pending decision of the District Deputy Registrar.


4.       Learned advocate appearing for respondent/caveator

submits that petitioner is guilty of suppression of material

facts.    He would point out that proceeding before District

Deputy Registrar, Jalgaon has been stayed by Division Bench of
                                3                      wp 8130.25.odt

this Court in Writ Petition no.11228 of 2023 vide order dated

11.9.2023 and aforesaid fact was suppressed by petitioner.


5.       Having considered submissions advanced, it can be

observed that section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code deals with

powers to stay the suit. When the matter in issue is directly

and substantially the same in a previously instituted suit

between the same parties (or parties under whom they claim)

and when such suit is pending in the same or any other court

having jurisdiction to grant relief claimed. In present case, suit

is instituted in the year 2014. Proceeding under Maharashtra

Money Lending (Regulation Act, 2014) is initiated by

petitioner in 2020. Therefore, suit is instituted before initiation

of the proceeding in money lending Act.


6.       In that view of the matter, provisions of section 10 would

not come to aid of the petitioner. The application itself was

misconceived and rightly rejected by the trial court. Hence,

this Court do not find any reason to interfere in the writ

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of

India. Hence, writ petition stands rejected.



                                 ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )
aaa/-f                            ...

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…