1 WP 1157/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1157 OF 2010 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar i/b Mr. Shashank Mangle for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Sapkale for respondent nos.1 to 6. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 13TH JULY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the interim order dated 9 February 2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ratnagiri granting stay to the order of the trial Judge during the pendency of the appeal. 3. I am not inclined to interfere as the order impugned is an interlocutory order and also for 2 WP 1157/10 the reasons indicated below. 4. The petitioner filed the suit against the respondent in which he prayed for an interim injunction. Interim injunction was granted by the trial court. Aggrieved respondent filed an appeal in the District Court. The District Court admitted the appeal and stayed the order of injunction till the disposal of the appeal. 5. When an appeal is admitted under Order 42 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellate court is entitled to grant stay of the order passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the learned appellate judge has not given adequate reasons for stay of the order of the trial court. In my view, in respect of an interlocutory order relating to the stay to be granted during the pendency of an appeal, reasons given need not be elaborate. Reasons which disclose application of mind by the appellate court are 3 WP 1157/10 adequate. If elaborate reasons are required to be given while passing every order of stay in an appeal, the courts which are already clogged with huge pendency of cases would have little time left for final hearing. 6. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned appellate Judge has applied his mind. He has recorded his opinion that the appeal involves serious questions to be tried. In my view, the reasons recorded are adequate and there is no need to interfere in the interlocutory order passed by the learned appellate Judge. 7. With this observation, the writ petition is rejected summarily. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the ad­interim order passed by this Court may be continued for some time as the petitioner wants to challenge this order in the Supreme Court. Ad­interim order, if any 4 WP 1157/10 previously granted by this Court, is continued for a period of 4 weeks. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)