1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 487/2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2165 OF 2011 (Pramod Kumar Harishchandra Agrawal vs. Sumit Lokeshkumar Bhalotiya & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DECEMBER 02, 2011. Heard Mrs. Raskar, learned counsel for the appellant. By placing reliance upon the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge while granting interim relief and later judgment in the case of Usha Sinha vs. Dina Ram, reported at (2007) 7 SCC 144, the learned counsel has contended that the respondents before this Court (petitioners before the learned Single Judge) who are transferees during the pendency of litigation, cannot be allowed to enjoy the equitable protection. After hearing the learned counsel, we find that in execution filed by present appellant, the half share of respondent No. 4 has been allowed to be attached. The learned Single Judge has admitted writ petition and has relied upon the judgment in the case of Vannarakkal K. Sreedharan vs. Chandramaath Balakrishnan, reported at (1990) 3 SCC 291, to grant stay during the pendency of that writ petition. 2 The argument of Mrs. Raskar, learned counsel that the decree being executed is money decree, by such transfers, execution of that decree cannot be allowed to be defeated or unduly delayed or then reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Usha Sinha vs. Dina Ram (supra) to support her contentions are relevant when writ petition is taken up for final hearing. It is apparent that if interim stay is not granted, cognizance of writ petition taken by this Court may itself be rendered infructuous. Hence without making any further observations and with liberty to the appellant to make other applications as are open to him before the learned Single Judge, we dispose of the present LPA. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.