1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 572/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2257/2010 Mohd Anis Ul Haq s/o Mohd. Jabbar -VERSUS- Smt. Kaushalayabai Hukumchand Agrawal and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mr. A.J. Thakkar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Rohit Deo, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE AND S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 15.04.2011. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The only grievance of the appellant is that, he had been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- in this Court to show his bonafide, and since the petition is partly allowed, the amount should have been refunded to him. Shri Thakkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant points out that 2 normally the amount is returned. It is a fact that normally the amount is returned, however, in the present case we find that the learned Single Judge has directed that the amount be paid according to the result of the execution proceedings. The words “subsequent proceedings” has reference to the said execution proceedings. This order does not determine the rights of the parties. In the circumstances, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is not a judgment to be challenged in an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd