1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4882 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1133 OF 2008 Gurudas P.Shanbhag ..Applicant V/s. Mohanlal Damaji Bhate ..Respondent Mr.A.M.Kulkarni, Advocate, for the applicant Mr.S.R.Page, Advocate, for the respondent CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. . In the above Civil Application, the applicant prays for modification of the order dated 12th June, 2008 passed in Civil Application No.3079 of 2008 in First Appeal No.1133 of 2008. By the said order, the appellant was directed to deposit Rs.3,00,000/- with awarded interest in this Court on or before the next date and furnish the solvent security to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court for 2 the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with pro-rata interest. The notice in the said Civil Application was made, returnable on 11th August, 2008. 2. Admittedly, the appellant has not deposited the said amount and has filed the instant Civil Application for variation/modification of the said order dated 12th June, 2008. It is the case of the applicant that he does not have the financial wherewithal to deposit the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with awarded interest and seeks modification to the extent of permitting him to furnish security for the entire amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest. It is further case of the applicant that he is the owner of a plot admeasuring 2190-08 Square Meters out of which smaller plots have been carved out. It is, therefore, the case of the applicant that the said plots can be kept as a security for the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with the awarded interest. 3. The above Civil Application is opposed on behalf of the 3 respondent who is the decree holder. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the said Order dated 12th June, 2008 was passed after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent that having not complied with the said order and having taken advantage of the said order, it is now not open for the applicant to seek modification by referring to the Index II of the property which is offered by the applicant as and by way of security; the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the said property is not exclusively owned by the applicant but is jointly owned by him with some other persons and therefore, the said property cannot be termed as a proper security. 4. Considering the rival contentions, in my view, no case for grant of the reliefs prayed for in the above Civil Application is made out. It is significant to note that the said order came to be passed on 12th June, 2008 and a period of almost two months was granted to the applicant to make the deposit and furnish security as directed by the said order. The instant Civil Application has been filed on 11th 4 September, 2008 which is almost after a month of the returnable date i.e.11th August, 2008 mentioned in the said order. If the applicant did not have the financial capacity to comply with the said order dated 12th June, 2008, it should have been pointed out to the Court on the said day itself. Apart from this, as indicated earlier, the above Civil Application has been filed almost after a month of the returnable date i.e. after the stay granted in favour of the applicant stood vacated. 5. As regards property offered now by way of security, there is merit in the submission made on behalf of the respondent that the property which is jointly owned by the applicant with some other persons cannot be termed as a proper security. Apart from this, one does not know whether the said property in fact can be offered as a security and whether the said property is free of encumbrances. Therefore, on both the counts i.e.since the said order dated 12th June, 2008 has not been complied on the basis of which the stay was granted to the applicant, as also on the count that the property offered by the applicant cannot be accepted as a security for the entire 5 decretal amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest the reliefs prayed for in the above Civil Application cannot be granted. The Civil Application is accordingly rejected. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)