1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2575/2010 Mr. Prabhudas s/o Sambhaji Gudhe Vs. Sau.Krushnabai w/o Nanaji Kamble and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. N.N. Mothghare, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd JUNE 2010. 1] In pending appeal, decree holder is expected not to file execution because of consent given by the petitioner/appellant for expeditious disposal. The matter was then adjourned for hearing of appeal itself on some occasions but the appellant has been avoiding to argue. He then moved application vaguely mentioning that the decree holder is filing application for execution and that application has been rejected on 15/2/2010 . Advocate Mothghare invites attention to the statement made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition to urge that as the execution is being filed grant of stay order is necessary. The statement in paragraph 8 is vague equally. Similar statement is also made before the Appellate Court in paragraph 9 of the application under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC which has been rejected. The number of execution has not been disclosed. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent/decree holder is violating the concession given by him. 2] In such circumstances, I do not find any wrong in the 2 application of mind by District Judge-1, Warora. The petitioner has to argue his appeal as promised. Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.