1) The revision is admitted. By consent, notice after admission made returnable forthwith. Both sides heard for final disposal.

2) The proceeding is filed against the order made by the learned 8th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded on Exhibit 65 in Regular Civil Suit No.515 of 2007. The suit is filed by present respondent against the applicants for relief of injunction. Present applicants filed Written Statement and then filed application at Exhibit 65 for dismissal of the suit or alternatively for staying the suit. It is the case of the applicants that in the past, present respondent, plaintiff, had filed Regular Civil Suit No.449 of 2001 in respect of the same subject matter for relief of injunction against Smt. Kusumtai Kagne. This suit came to be dismissed on 22-1-2009. Against this decision respondent preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.35 of 2009 in District Court and the appeal is still pending. It is the case of the applicants that in view of these circumstances, Regular Civil Suit No.515 of 2007 either needs to be dismissed or needs to be stayed.

3) Present respondent filed say to the application. He has contended that though previous suit was filed against Kusumtai, cause of action against present applicants is different. It is contended that during pendency of the previous litigation Kusumtai prepared a bogus document in favour of present applicants and on the basis of that document present applicants are obstructing the possession of the respondent.

4) The learned Civil Judge has observed that the matter in issue in both the suits is different, the suits are between different parties and so the suit cannot be stayed. It is observed that as the decision given in the previous suit has not attained finality, present suit, RCS No.515 of 2007, cannot be dismissed.

5) It was mainly submitted by the learned counsel of respondent that revision against the aforesaid order is not tenable. He submitted that the order made by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division is not of the nature mentioned in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “CPC”). He submitted that, as the order disposing of that application could not have disposed of Regular Civil Suit No.515 of 2007, the order does not fall under section 115 CPC. He has placed reliance on following reported cases.

6) In the case reported as (2003) 6 SCC 659 (Shiv Shakti Cooperative Housing Society v. Swaraj Developers) the Apex Court has discussed the provision of Section 115, CPC and the effect of amendment made to the said section in the year 1999. This Court has carefully gone through the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the reported case. Only brief reference to the facts of the proceeding is made by the Hon’ble Apex Court and it appears that revisions were filed in the High Court against orders made on applications filed for injunction and similar matters. Submission was made that the words “other proceedings” mentioned in Section 115 CPC include such proceedings. In that context the Apex Court has made some observations. The decision given by the High Court that revision was not maintainable as even if the order was made in favour of the revision applicants on that application the same would not have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings is upheld by the Apex Court.

7) Another case reported as 2009 (1) Bom. C.R. (Cri) 872 Panhala Hill Station Municipal Council v. Grand Hotel Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai was cited. It is totally in different context.

8) One case reported as 2006 (2) Mh.L.J. 794 (Sadguru Constructions v. Smt. Jaimeet Kaur) was cited. The facts show that there is discussion about section 10 of the CPC. Two suits were filed by different parties and the cause of action and also the reliefs claimed were not identical. It was a writ petition.

9) Another case reported as AIR 1981 Delhi 332 (Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Hindustan Embroidery Mills) was cited. The facts show that the parties in two suits were different and there it was held that