[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL W.P. NO.3406 OF 2004 Niranjan Varjivandas Sheth ..Petitioner [Ori.Deft.No.4] Vs. Bank of India, Br.Nasik and Ors. ..Respondents ... Smt.Sukeshi Bhandari Advocate for Petitioner Mr.Kunal A.Kothari i/b Naresh S.Fadia Advocate for Respondent No.1 Petition dismissed against Respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide Court’s order dated 22.6.2007 None appears for Respondent No.4 though served ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JANUARY 14, 2008 DATE : JANUARY 14, 2008 DATE : JANUARY 14, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned advocate for the Respondent No.1-Bank of India. None appears for Respondent No.4 though served. Petition stood dismissed against the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 vide Court’s order dated 22.6.2007. 2. It is the case of the Respondent no.1-Bank of India that Respondent No.3-Shri.Kirit Varjeevandas [-2-] Sheth had taken a loan of Rs.2,88,000/- for and on behalf of Respondent No.2-M/s.Mahaveer Engineering Works and the present petitioner has stood Guarantor for the said loan. As there was default on the part of Respondent No.3 in repaying the said loan, Special Civil Suit No.297 of 1990 was instituted by the Bank against the present petitioner showing him as Guarantor for the loan granted in 1983 to Respondent No.3. That suit came to be decided against the petitioner on merits. The case of the petitioner is that the said suit was decided exparte. Hence, he preferred Misc.Civil Application No.291 of 1998 for setting aside exparte decree wherein an application came to be preferred for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside exparte decree passed against the petitioner in Special Civil Suit No. 297 of 1990. The said application came to be rejected. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been preferred. 3. During the pendency of the present petition, to show his bonafides, the petitioner had deposited Rs.1 lakh in this Court. On deposit of the said amount, the execution of the decree in Special [-3-] Civil Suit came to be stayed. 4. The learned advocate for the Respondent No.1-Bank states that the matter has been amicably settled between the Respondent No.1-Bank and Respondent No.2-M/s.Mahaveer Engineering Works and as per the settlement, the entire dues have been paid by the Respondent No.2 to the Respondent No.1-Bank. In view of this statement, there is no question of now executing the decree dated 7.12.1991 as the entire decretal amount has been repaid by the Respondent No.2 to the Respondent No.1-Bank. Hence, the present writ petition has become infructuous and is disposed of as such. The amount of Rs.1 lakh deposited by the petitioner, shall be refunded to the Petitioner within three weeks from today. 5. Petition is disposed of accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]