1 WP 5434.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5434 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.A.N.Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner ............................ CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 25/07/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. Nagargoje, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner appears to be the decree holder. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court has passed decree for recovery of possession. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent had filed Appeal before the District Court. There was delay in filing Appeal. As such, the respondents also filed an application for condonation of delay bearing Misc. Application No. 175 of 2008. The appellate Court on 4/3/2008 had stayed the execution of the decree passed. Thereafter vide Order dated 8/9/2009, had 2 WP 5434.2011 extended the stay till the decision in the main application or till further order of the Court whichever occures earlier. The learned counsel submits that the Misc. Application No. 175 of 2008 was dismissed on merits on 30/1/2010. As such, earlier stay granted stood vacated. The learned counsel further contends that in spite of this fact being brought to the notice of the executing Court, the executing Court is not proceeding with the matter and on the premise that there is stay to the proceedings in the execution of the decree, has not taken any steps. 3. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has filed any application before the executing Court and the executing Court has refused to entertain the said application on the ground of stay granted by the appellate Court in Misc. Application No. 175 of 2008. No doubt, in the Roznama produced before this Court, it appears that in Roznama up to 29/4/2011, it is shown that the matter is stayed by the District Court. 4. Once the Misc. Application No. 175 of 2008 stood dismissed, the impugned order passed in the said application also came to an end. But, in the present case, there is nothing on record to show 3 WP 5434.2011 that the petitioner had moved for proceeding further with the execution by filing any substantive application and that the executing Court had not proceeded with the matter pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner. 5. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 5434.2011