1 app103-11 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.103 OF 2011 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1813 OF 2010 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.178 OF 2008 IN SUMMARY SUIT NO.1957 OF 1988 P.G. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant V/s. Narayan N. Jajodia (HUF) & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Aniruddha A. Joshi with Mr.K.J. Nansi for the Appellant. Mr.V.N. Ajitkumar i/b Shukla & Shukla fore Respondent No.1. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. WEDNESDAY 16TH MARCH 2011. P.C. :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for respondent no.1 for final disposal of the appeal. 2. The appeal is admitted. Mr.Ajitkumar waives the service of notice on behalf of respondent no.1. 3. The appeal is against the order dated 22.12.2010 of the 2 app103-11 learned single Judge of this Court, rejecting the appellant’s prayer for ad-interim stay of the execution proceedings. 4. In the case of the execution of the decree obtained by the respondent/plaintiff, the property in question came to be attached. The appellant moved Chamber Summons No.1813 of 2010 and relied on the registered agreement for sale dated 7.7.2001 between A.P.J. Pvt. Ltd. and the appellant. 5. The leaned single Judge however, rejected the prayer for ad- interim relief i.e. the stay of the execution proceedings, on the ground that the document relied upon by the appellant is merely an agreement to sell and not the sale-deed. Hence, the leaned single Judge therefore, concluded that the appellant cannot treat himself to be the full owner of the property and therefore, the appellant had failed to make out prima- facie case for stay of the execution of the decree as against the property in question. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the registered agreement for sale dated dated 7.7.2001 confers valuable rights on the appellant and that the prayer for ad-interim stay of execution has been rejected merely on the ground that the document is in question is an agreement to sell and not the sale-deed. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/plaintiff has supported the order of the learned single Judge. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that while the order of attachment passed by the learned single 3 app103-11 Judge i.e. the Executing Court, may continue to operate, no further execution proceedings should be allowed to continue till the above Chamber Summons is heard finally. Whatever rights the appellant has under the registered agreement for sale dated 7.7.2001, need to be taken into consideration and the appellant’s contentions need to be examined on merits at the final hearing of the Chamber Summons. 9. In view of the above discussions, without expressing any opinion on the question of the appellant’s rights under the registered agreement for sale dated 7.7.2001, we allow this appeal and grant ad- interim stay of further execution proceedings in Execution Application No.178 of 2008, till Chamber Summons No.1813 of 2010 is finally heard and decided, with a clarification that the order of attachment of the property in question shall continue to operate. The appeal is therefore disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.