IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA STAMP NUMBER (APPLN.) NO. 1702 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 188 OF 2009 SANJITA UDAISING RANE SARDESSAI AND ANR., ... Appellants Versus NITISH R. DESSAI AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. S. K. Kakodkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rama Rivonkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M. S. Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. R. Pereira, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. Date:- 6th May, 2009 P.C. Before this writ petition was filed, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.03/2009 which has been tagged along with this writ petition. That petition was filed to challenge an order dated 03.01.2009 allowing two applicants one Nitish and one Subhada to be added as Decree Holders to receive the proceeds of certain deposits with regard to iron ore made from time to time by the Judgment Debtors in the suit filed by the applicants herein along with one Rajan. The applicants and the said Rajan contend that the applicants in that application, Nitish and Subhada, are not entitled to any share in the proceeds as Decree Holders. Under the impugned order dated 03.01.2009, Nitish and Subhada were allowed to be joined as applicants in the Execution proceedings to receive the shares themselves as Decree Holders and to get their share amongst other Decree Holders. After the challenge to the order dated 03.01.2009 in the writ petition nothing further is done. The order of allowing them as Decree Holders is not stayed. They are therefore, two of the Decree Holders as of now. 2. Much later, this writ petition no.188/2009 is filed by the same petitioners. The fact of the application being made and the order dated 03.01.2009 been passed is mentioned in this writ petition. 3. In this writ petition an order of this Court dated 19.09.2008 passed in Writ Petition no.462/2007 is annexed. Under that order the shares, which the Decree Holders would have for withdrawal of the amounts deposited from time to time by the Judgment Debtors are considered and determined. Pending further Inventory Proceedings with regard to the will of the testatrix one Vijaymala, the share of Rajan and respondent no.1 and 2 together are determined. The execution to that extent is therefore, allowed to proceed. 4. In this writ petition the challenge to the order dated 09.02.2008 which came to be passed pursuant to the order dated 19.09.2008 passed by this Court. The order dated 19.09.2008 is not challenged in this writ petition. It cannot be. The counsel on behalf of the applicants stated on instruction that a SLP is filed. No particulars are stated to the Court whether interim stay is granted or whether the SLP is even admitted. The order dated 19.09.2008 has remained in force for the last eight months. Only the order of the Trial Court passed upon considering the order dated 19.09.2008 is challenged in this writ petition. 5. After filing of the writ petition, a stay of execution of the order dated 09.02.2008 of the Trial Court was obtained on 26.03.2009. That stay was until 02.04.2009. Thereafter there has been no stay of execution. This aspect has been clarified by this Court on 04.05.2009. For want of any stay, the execution is required to proceed. Pursuant to the order dated 19.09.2008 which has been considered by the Trial Court, the withdrawals of the parties shown to be Decree Holders are to be claimed by them only as has been determined by this Court in writ petition no.462/2007 under the order dated 19.09.2008. 6. This application is now made essentially to stay this Court's order dated 19.09.2008 since the executing Court is required to proceed in execution which would be in terms of this order. This order of stay would therefore, effectually stay the order of this Court in another writ petition. 7. No case of stay of execution simpliciter is made out. However, it is clarified that the execution which was to proceed shall be in accordance with the shares which have been mentioned as determined in writ petition no.642/2007 under the order dated 19.09.2008. The parties shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the Judgment Debtor from time to time subject to making adjustments and appropriations upon final orders being passed with regard to the respective shares. The application is disposed off accordingly. 8. This writ petition shall be heard along with writ petition No.103 of 2009. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. lh/.