1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1686 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.547 OF 2009 Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation & Another ..Applicants versus Shrikrishna Feeds Miraj ..Respondent Mr.G.H.Keluskar for the appellant Mr.Ashutosh Kulkarni for the respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 2nd JULY, 2009. P.C: 1. Rule. Advocate Mr. Kulkarni waives service. By this civil application the appellants want execution of the decree against the appellants i.e. Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation to be stayed. I have heard learned 2 Advocates Mr.Keluskar and Mr. Kulkarni in support of their respective contentions. The respondents instituted a suit for recovery of the amount on the ground that the truck of the respondent came to be illegally detained for about 259 days and that the detention resulted in financial loss to the respondent. The first appeal has been admitted and the appellants have sought stay of the execution of the decree. The learned trial Judge has decreed the suit to the extent of Rs. 2,89,000/-. 2. When it is the case of the respondent that on account of detention of the truck for 259 days he has suffered loss of money to the extent of Rs. 2,89,000/-, it was necessary for the respondent to place before the Court cogent evidence to show as to how he has quantified the loss. 3. It is true that on account of detention of the truck, the respondents may not have been able to run his business. However it was absolutely 3 necessary for the respondent to show his average profit for a particular year and than make out the case for demand and damages. It was also necessary for him to place before the Court appropriate evidence through expert as to in what way the parts of the truck suffered. In my view, in the absence of appropriate evidence this is not a case where the appellants should be put to terms to deposit the amount. Considering the case that the appellants are the Municipal Corporation, if at all the appeal is dismissed, the respondent would be able to successfully execute the decree against the assets of the Municipal Corporation. It can be easily observed that in any case the assets of the Municipal Corporation will be more than the claim of the respondents. 4. In the circumstances mentioned aforesaid, the request of Mr. Kulkarni calling upon the appellants to deposit the money in the court cannot be accepted. Hence rule is required to be made absolute in above terms. Hence the order. 4 ORDER Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)