FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 351/2009 [Kamalkumar G. Methi ..vs.. Dipnarayansingh M. Baghele - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Kharkate Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Borkar Advocate for the respondent no.1 to 3 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 25, 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order dated 26.11.2008. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the trial court did not commit any error whatsoever in directing the petitioner / defendant to deposit an amount of Rs.54000/- in the court till the next date, without fail and also rejected the prayer of the petitioner to withhold the amount and invest it in the fixed deposit account. The respondent had filed a suit for possession and recovery of arrears of rent against the present petitioner. The petitioner claimed to be an owner of the suit property, on the basis of a written agreement, but there was no sale deed executed between the parties. In such circumstances the trial court did not commit any error in directing the defendant to deposit arrears of rent of Rs.54000/-. The trial court was also justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to invest the amount in a fixed deposit account. There is no error whatsoever, much less a jurisdictional error in the order passed by the trial court. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP