1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6245/2010. (Shri Ramakant s/o Narhari Shewale Vs. Vinod s/o Madhavrao Shewale and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.PC Marpakwar, Adv. for petitioner; Mr.US Malte, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Mr.MM Joshi, Adv. for Respondent No.3. *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 18 th October, 2010. ... 1) Heard extensively. 2) Regular Civil Suit No.230/2009 was decreed on 31.3.2010. Regular Civil Appeal No.103/2010 was moved before the learned District Judge, Aurangabad. Learned District Judge-1, Aurangabad, while dealing with the applications in terms of Exhibits-5 and 18, passed the following order : "1. The execution of the decree is stayed till disposal of the appeal. 2. The Respondent no.2 is directed to maintain the amount kept in the Fixed Deposit till disposal of the appeal or further orders are passed in the appeal. 3. The hearing of the appeal is expedited. 2 4. Paper book is dispensed with or the parties are at liberty to prepare the Paper Book for the convenience of all. 5. Appeal is adjourned to 17.7.2010." 3) This order is impugned by the plaintiff/writ petitioner. 4) Though several contentions are advanced by learned Counsel for petitioner, the fact remains that the security, to which reference is given, to be warranted in terms of Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC, the very order, referred above, indicates that the amount is directed to be invested and not to be utilized by the parties litigating. This follows that the security was not warranted. Considering the nature of the decree passed by the trial court, the objection of writ petitioner to this effect is, therefore, mitigated. 5) The Second objection about lodging of caveat and not adhering to caveat rules may be correct, however, the order under challenge is innocuous in nature and cannot be said to be causing any prejudice to the writ petitioner. 6) During the course of submissions, learned Counsel for the respondents informs, that paper book is furnished and the appeal is ready for final disposal, if the writ petitioner 3 cooperates. 7) Both the learned Counsel shall ensure to get the Regular Civil Appeal No.103/2010, pending before the learned District Judge-1, Aurangabad,disposed of expeditiously without any unreasonable accommodation. 8) Considering the nature of the order, if writ petitioner moves the learned District Judge-1, Aurangabad for withdrawal of the amount, the learned District Judge will consider the same on its own merits by allowing such withdrawal either on security or otherwise or rejecting the same. 9) With these observations, no interference in the order under challenge. Writ Petition dismissed. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/