1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.862/2009. IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1036/2008 Muli Mava Chavda (since deceased) and others. ..Applicants/Appellants -VERSUS- Kamleshsingh Harnamsingh Chowhan. ..Respondent ......... Mr.M.P.Vashi, Advocate for the applicants. Mr.Vivek Kantawala, Advocate for the respondent. .......... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The applicants do not press the prayer clauses A, C, D and E in view of the pendency of the execution application before the City Civil Court and the reliefs claimed therein. Hence, the said prayers are rejected as not pressed. 2. The prayer clause-B is pressed in service whereby the applicants are seeking permission to deposit the monthly amount of compensation of Rs.1,000/- in the Court. The controversy touching the payment of compensation arises in peculiar facts of the case, which in brief, are narrated herein below. 2 3. The respondent instituted a suit for possession of the premises in the City Civil Court. The suit came to be decreed in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the City Civil Court, the applicants/appellants/defendants have instituted this First Appeal. This Court admitted the appeal and granted stay to the execution of the decree for possession on the condition that the applicants shall pay compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month prospectively. The respondent executed the decree alleging that the compensation was not paid, therefore, the stay order was not in operation. It is the case of the applicants that the applicants had tried to tender the amount to the respondent, however, the same was not accepted. The applicants moved Civil Application No.5926/2008 and demonstrated not only their readiness and willingness to pay the compensation but tender of the amount as well. On being satisfied in that regard, this Court passed an order on 15.12.2008 and allowed the Civil Application. Under the said order, the respondent was directed to put the applicants/appellants in possession of the property subject to condition of payment of Rs.1,000/- per month by way of compensation. With a view to avoid further controversy with regard to actual payment, the mode of payment was also stipulated in the order. Obviously, the same was with a view to ensure the payment of compensation and for no other purpose. The order dated 15.12.2008 which directs handing over the possession was challenged in the Supreme Court by the respondent. However, the Apex Court declined 3 to interfere with the order and dismissed the S.L.P. summarily. It is, as such, imperative on the part of the respondent to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the applicants, but it has not been so done. In this view of the matter, the applicants are left with no other alternative but to proceed for the execution of the order passed by this Court on 15.12.2008. I am informed that the applicants have moved the City Civil Court for obtaining possession of the suit premises. 4. In the above set of facts, the applicants have pressed the prayer clause-B of the present Civil Application which seeks permission to deposit the amount in the Court. The case of the applicants is that the respondent is taking advantage of the order dated 15.12.2008 which lays down the mode of payment. The grievance is that respondent is not accepting the amount under one pretext or other obviously with a view to take advantage of the situation wherein it could be contended that the applicants have not made the payment of compensation. My attention is invited to the communication dated 18.12.2008 from the Advocate and Solicitors of the respondent. On perusal of the same, it reveals that when the applicants sent the bankers cheque for payment of the amount of compensation, the said payment was refused under the pretext that the amount has to be paid in the manner indicated in the order passed by this Court dated 15.12.2008. The mode of payment, it is reiterated, was for securing the regular payment of amount of compensation by the Applicant. It is, thus, apparent that on 4 the one hand the respondent is making grievance that the amount has not been regularly paid and on the other hand, the respondent is refusing to accept the amount on the ground that the same is not in conformity with the letter of order. The respondent is insisting on compliance of the letter of order and not the spirit of the order. The spirit of the order dated 15.12.2008 is payment of money and not the mode of payment. 5. Having regard to the facts narrated herein above and the conduct of the respondent, prayer clause-B is granted in modification of the order dated 15.12.2008. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that on account of the pendency of the Civil Applications, the City Civil Court is not proceeding with the execution application and thus, seeks clarification that the pendency of the applications does not come in the way of the City Civil Court to proceed with the execution application. 7. It is clarified that the pendency of the applications before this Court does not act as an impleadment in the way of the City Civil Court in execution of the order. 8. Civil Application No.862/2009 is allowed and disposed of accordingly. 9. The parties to act on authenticated copy of the order. JUDGE