1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3047 OF 2010 Maheshkumar Gavaldas Meghani .. PETITIONER VERSUS Pannalal Kesarimail Jain & another .. RRESPONDENTS Mr. S.P.Shah, Advocate for the petitioner. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 12th APRIL, 2010 PER COURT : 1 Petitioner herein is raising exception to the order passed by the trial court on 4-1-2010 below exh. 7 in Regular Civil Appeal no. 192/2007. 2 It is the contention of the petitioner that the suit presented by the petitioner / original plaintiff came to be decreed and the defendant is directed to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property within two months from the date of the order passed by the trial court. Decree came to be passed by the trial court in respect of eviction of the respondents / 2 defendants on 19-8-2009. It is contended that the respondent is in occupation of the premises since many years and during the continuation of the suit also, he has not deposited the amount towards use and occupation of the suit premises. Suit was presented in 2000 and the same remained pending for about nine years. The defendant is protected by the appellate authority during the continuance of the appeal. It is his contention that although respondent / defendant is enjoying possession of the tenanted premises, he is not directed to deposit the amount towards use and occupation of the premises and, the plaintiff, inspite of securing decree in respect of eviction is deprived of the amount towards damages for use and occupation of the premises by the defendant. Plaintiff / petitioner has liberty to present such an application requesting the first appellate court to direct the respondent / defendant to deposit the amount towards damages for use and occupation of the suit premises. Petitioner /plaintiff can present such an application in view of Order 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure and the first appellate court shall consider such application, if presented by the petitioner. In view of the observations made above, no interference is called for in the petition in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition therefore stands rejected. The first appellate court shall decide the appeal expeditiously. 3 3 In view of dismissal of the petition, pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE) JUDGE dyb/wp3047.10.odt