1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4028 OF 2009 1. Shahaji s/o. Sudhakar Patil, Age 36 yrs., Occu. Agri., R/o. Nelwad, Post Nilanga, Tal. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. Sulyabai w/o. Motiram Patil, Age 52 yrs., Occu. Housewife, R/o. Behind Dayanand College, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. 2. Sushilabai w/o. Sudhakar Patil, Age 60 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, R/o. Nelwad, Post Nilanga, Tal. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. 3. Limbraj s/o. Sudhakar Patil, Age 24 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, R/o. Nelwad, Post Nilanga, Tal. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. 4. Sau. Sanjiwani Kishan Jadhav, Age 34 yrs., Occu. H.H., R/o. Jajunmugali, Tq. Basavkalyan, Dist. Bidar. 5. Sau. Surekha s/o. Ramrao Mane, Age 32 yrs., Occu. H.H., R/o. Wadgaon, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. 6. Sau. Nanda w/o. Anil Jadhav, Age 30 yrs., Occu. H.H., R/o. Chitta, Tal. Basavkalyan, Dist. Bidar. 7. Sau. Alka w/o. Balaji Akade, Age 28 yrs., Occu. House Wife, R/o. Korali, Tal. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. 2 8. Sau. Rajabai w/o. Ghansham Salunke-Patil, Age 26 yrs., Occu. House Wife, R/o. Chalburga, Tal. Ausa, Dist. Latur. 9. Sau. Umabai w/o. Sheshero Patil, Age 69 yrs., Occu. House Wife, R/o. Aundha, Tal. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. 10. The State of Maharashta, Through the District Collector, Latur. ....Respondents. Shri. Hiraji Gaikwad, Advocate for petitioner. Smt. M.D. Thube-Mhase, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Shri. V.G. Shelke, AGP for respondent No. 10. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 9th August, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 6.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nilanga, on application for stay Exh. 32, filed by the petitioner in Regular Civil Appeal No. 60/2006. By this order, the learned Additional District Judge has accepted the statement made on behalf of the respondents that the decree in respect of agricultural land is executed and further statement is recorded that the respondents will not execute the decree for house property till the decision of the appeal. After recording these two statements, the execution and implementation of the impugned decree is stayed, pending the decision of the appeal, only to the extent of partition in respect of the residential house properties. 3 2. Notice in this matter was issued on 1st of July 2009 for final disposal of the petition and the parties were directed to maintain statusquo. Mrs. M.D. Thube-Mhase appears for respondent No. 1 whereas the learned A.G.P. Shri. V.G. Shelke appears for respondent No. 10. All other parties are served. The petition is dismissed so far as the respondent No. 4 is concerned. The learned counsels appearing for the parties agree that the matter can be finally disposed of in view of the order dated 1st July 2009 passed by this Court. Hence, Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter by consent of parties. 3. In this petition, a specific ground is raised in para 8 that yet the decree in respect of agricultural land has not been executed. In the light of this ground of challenge, this Court has passed an order of statusquo. The Appellate Court has stayed the execution and implementation of decree passed by the Trial Court only to the extent of residential house properties. It is not disputed that the said order can be continued pending the decision of the appeal. 4. So far as the ground regarding the execution of decree in respect of the partition of agricultural land is concerned, the Appellate Court was not right in merely accepting the statement made by the respondents that the decree has been executed. When it is specifically disputed by the petitioner and it is urged that the decree is yet to be 4 executed, the Appellate Court was bound to record reasons after hearing the parties on the question, whether the decree has been executed or not. The Appellate Court has failed to record such reasons. Hence, the order suffers from jurisdictional error. The same is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 5. In the result, the instant writ petition is partly allowed and the order dated 6.5.2009 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 60/2006 below Exh. 32 is hereby quashed and set aside, only to the extent it holds that the decree in respect of agricultural land is already executed. The parties are at liberty to place on record all such documents as are available with them in support of their pleadings. The Appellate Court is directed to consider such question afresh, after hearing the parties and recording the findings and pass an order in accordance with law. So far as rest of the order is concerned, the same needs no interference. This Court had passed the order of statusquo on 1st July 2009. The same shall continue till the decision of the said question by the Appellate Court. No order as to costs. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp4028.09