88 WP 1385 OF 2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 88 WRIT PETITION NO. 1385 OF 2026 RASHID USMAN SHAIKH VERSUS NAUSHAD FAKARODDIN SHAIKH AND ORS. ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Prasad Pradeep Kulkarni a/w Adv. Nakul V. Shukla, a/w Adv. Amol Kanaki, a/w Adv. Amol Deshinge Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. R. S. Alange a/w Adv. V. S. Kupawade A.G.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. Santosh A. Jadhav, Govt. Counsel, Panel ‘B’ ... CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 17.08.2026 PER COURT : Heard both sides. 2. Being aggrieved by order dated 17.12.2025 passed below Exh. 46 in Regular Civil Suit No. 454/2022 present petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently filed Regular Civil Suit No. 454/2022 should have been stayed in view of pendency of Regular Civil Suit No. 404/2016. The issue involved is substantially the same including parties and the subject matter. It is contended that the Trial Court adopted hyper-technical approach recording that parties and relief are different. It is submitted that if the earlier filed suit is decreed, subsequently filed suit would become redundant and no relief could be granted. It is further submitted that the decision rendered in first suit would operate res judicata in the subsequently filed suit. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. It is submitted that the subject matter, parties and reliefs are different and 1/3 88 WP 1385 OF 2026.odt Section 10 of CPC can have no application. 5. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. I have gone through plaints of Regular Civil Suit No. 404/2016 and 454/2022. It is evident that the parties and the reliefs in both suits are distinct, albeit couple of parties are common. The earlier suit is pending at the stage of recoding of evidence before different Court. 6. The controversy in both suits can be sum up as follows: (a) Fakroddin was the owner, who was plaintiff in earlier suit and he is substituted by his heirs. (b) The plaintiff Fakroddin had sold 1H 60R land of Gat No. 992/1 on 12.06.2007 to one Mrs. Nirmala Chavan, defendant no. 4 therein. (c) The defendants in earlier suit in collusion procured N.A. order on 15.12.2007 and layout sanction on 21.07.2008, which are stated to be bad in law. (d) Mrs. Nirmala Chavan, sold 4.51 Are of land, which she had received from Fakroddin vide sale-deed dated 08.10.2020 to Naushad Shaikh. (e) Naushad, is the plaintiff in subsequently filed suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 454/2022 (f) Naushad claims encroachment over the land purchased by him and seeks declaration of his title in later suit. (g) In both of the suits the sale transactions are not challenged. 2/3 88 WP 1385 OF 2026.odt 7. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Judge. The parties are distinct. The subject matter in the subsequently filed suit is forming part of the subject matter in earlier filed suit. The plaintiff in earlier filed suit did not seek any declaration in respect of sale-deed dated 12.06.2007. In the absence of said relief, even if he succeeds in the suit, the title of vendor Mrs. Nirmala Chavan would remain unaffected. If the title remains unaffected, then the decision of a previous suit would not operate as res judicata for subsequently filed suit. 8. The impugned order is plausible and reasonable. The subsequently filed suit cannot be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. However, it cannot be said that there is absolutely no nexus of previously filed suit and subsequently filed suit. It would be appropriate for the parties to solicit clubbing of the suit. 9. The writ petition is dismissed. However, the parties shall have liberty to seek appropriate orders for clubbing of the Regular Civil Suit No. 404/2016 and 454/2022 by taking recourse to Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) mkd/- 3/3