1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3518/2011 (JOSEPH ROQUE BASTIAN VERSUS RITA SALVE CHARLES) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.I. Khan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.V. Bhangde, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2011 . Heard. The executing Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner for grant of stay to the execution proceedings. The petitioner is the decree holder, who had filed the execution proceedings for executing the decree of possession passed in favour of the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent that the respondent was wrongfully dispossessed during the pendency of the proceedings and, hence, the respondent filed an application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of possession in the execution proceedings. The decree holder could not have sought a stay to the execution proceedings on the ground that the criminal proceedings had been lodged against the decree holder and were pending. The executing Court rightly held that there was hardly any chance of causing prejudice to the decree holder in case the stay was not granted. 2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, according to the executing Court, no case had been made out by the decree holder for staying the execution proceedings. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner that the executing Court is prejudiced against the petitioner as it is observed in paragraph 9 of the impugned order that the petitioner has allegedly taken possession of the property without following due process of law and, therefore, he does not deserve any protection from the Court is not well founded as the executing Court will decide the issue in regard to the entitlement of the respondent to the restoration of possession on its merits and in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE