1 wp2194.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2194 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2213 OF 2011 ..... Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel with Mr. S.V. Dankh, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel with Mr. A.S. Gandhi, Advocate for respondent. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 29th March, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Senior Counsel Mr. Dixit with Advocate Dunkh for petitioner and Senior Counsel Mandlik with Mr. Gandhi for respondent. 2. Senior Counsel Mr. Dixit fairly points out that during pendency of substantive suit objection to continuation of Special Civil Suit instituted by the respondent in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was raised and it was rejected. The said rejection was along with the final adjudication i.e. at the time of delivery of judgment and decree. That judgment and decree is then questioned before this Court in First Appeal and that First Appeal is admitted for final hearing. However, interim stay has been refused. 2 wp2194.11 He further states that though the hearing is expedited and matter was heard on some occasion, the hearing could not be finished and now the matter is fixed on 3rd week of April, 2011. 3. In this situation, the respondent-decree holder has filed execution proceedings and in those execution proceedings, maintainability of the same was questioned by pointing out a very same provision of Section 22. According to him, as the aspect of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 has not been appropriately evaluated and execution is independent proceedings, the objection raised by the petitioner needed consideration and could not have been rejected only on the ground that the appellate court has refused to grant stay or then decree has not yet attend finality as First Appeal against it is pending. 4. Senior Counsel Mr. Mandlik for respondent supports the order. He contends that when after considering similar contentions, High Court has refused to grant interim relief, the executing court could not have stayed the execution proceedings. 5. Fact that ground in relation to bar provided under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 is 3 wp2194.11 raised in First Appeal is not in dispute. The fact that this Court has declined to grant interim stay to the petitioner is not in dispute. In this situation, it is apparent that executing court could not have stayed the execution of decree. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence, the Petition is rejected. Learned Counsel seeks liberty to move again after final adjudication of First Appeal. The request is being opposed by other side. However, if law permits the petitioner is at liberty to move such application again. 6. The parties to act upon the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Shirestedar. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp 2194.11