1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Civil Application No. 146 of 2011 IN Letters Patent Appeal No. 23 of 2010 Arising out of Writ Petition No. 3431 of 2009 [Ishwari Traders & others Vs. Pravin Someshwar Manurkar & another] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. P.A. Gode, Adv., for respondents. Mr. P.S. Tiwari, Adv., for appellants. ---- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND U.V. BAKRE, JJ. DATE : 08th April, 2011. 1. The original landlords-plaintiffs, who are respondent nos. 1 and 2 in present Letters Patent Appeal, have filed this application for clarification/modification of the order dated 2 nd December, 2009. 2. The respondents have sought a clarification to the effect that the stay granted by this Court will not come in their way for executing the Judgment and Decree of learned Additional Small Cause Court, subject-matter of proceedings, against original defendant nos. 4 and 5 who are not impleaded as respondents in the Letters Patent Appeal. 2 3. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 4. This Court has seen that the order dated 2 nd December, 2009 was passed in presence of learned Adv. Mr. P.A. Gode who was representing respondent no.1. 5. It is not explained as to in what circumstances, the fact that the original defendant nos. 4 and 5 are in possession of the suit property and/or that present appellants are not in possession, was not brought to the notice of this Court. No explanation has been offered as to this failure. 6. In this background, after hearing the parties, when this Court was satisfied that execution of the decree, subject-matter of Letters Patent Appeal, deserves to be stayed, and order was passed, now we do not see any reason to review the said order in the guise of clarification/modification. 7. We are satisfied that this application is vexatious, and we saddle the respondents with a cost of Rs.5,000-00 [rupees five thousand only]. Judge Judge |Hedau| 3