1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders |Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’ orders| WRIT PETITION NO.3444/2009 ... Amol Shinde h/f Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar,Adv.for petr. CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 12/7/2010. 1] This Writ Petition challenges order dated 3/3/2009 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Jalgaon on the application under Order XLI Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code (Exh.7) for stay to the effect, operation and execution of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge,Senior Division, Raver in Regular Civil Suit No.67/04. The decree is granting declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of suit property and the respondents are restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. 2 2] It is an admitted position as it seems from the order impugned, that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that pursuant to the decree passed by the trial Court, entry has been taken into revenue record, which is on page 17 and the names of the plaintiff are recorded as owners of the suit property. He therefore, submits that the Appellate Court ought not to have granted stay to the effect, operation and execution of the decree in question. According to him, the decree has also been implemented and hence there is no question of granting stay. 3] The decree is regarding ownership of the property. It is natural that when the decree is passed entry would be taken in the name of the plaintiff in the revenue record, accordingly the same has been taken. However, that does not make the appeal filed by the defendant as infructuous. The matter is sub-judice in appeal. The Appellate Court has imposed conditions while granting the stay to the effect and operation of the 3 decree. Even if the name of the plaintiff recorded in the revenue record, it will be subject to the decision of the Appeal. Hence, no interference is called for in the order impugned in this Petition. 4] Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. (R.K.DESHPANDE) JUDGE umg/wp3444-09 4