1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION F. NO.394 OF 2010. IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1449 OF 2009. APPLICANT : Nitin S/o Dnyaneshwar Bobde, aged about 31 years, Occupation-Service, R/o “Shivdarshan” Apartment, Burde Layout, Gorewada Road, Borgaon, Nagpur. -VERSUS- NON-APPLICANT: Sou. Shubhangi @ Devyani w/o Nitin Bobde, Aged about 26 years, Occupation-Nil, R/o C/o Ramdasji Kuthe, R/o Borgaon, Gorewada Road, Nagpur. Shri R. Vyas, Advocate for the applicant. Shri R. K. Pillai, Advocate for respondent. CORAM: A. H. JOSHI AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED: 4th MARCH 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A. H. Joshi, J) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Mr. R. K. Pillai waives service. Application is taken up for final disposal. 2. This is an application for stay. Applicant's appeal has been admitted. 3. By the decree under appeal, the Family Court has directed that the appellant herein that he shall return 2 the articles specified at Sr. Nos.1 to 193 in the list of articles annexed to the petition of the wife. 4. The applicant's contention is that if the order is required to be complied with or put to execution, nothing shall remain to be decided in the appeal. 5. In paragraph no.2 of the application, the applicant has given list of items which he is willing to return out of 193 articles for which decree was prayed for. He has then pleaded in paragraph number 3 that the gold ornaments at item no.193 are not with him and cannot be returned. 6. Learned Advocate Mr. Vyas for the applicant has urged in favour of the stay emphasizing that 'the list of articles' was not proved. 7. For supporting his submission, learned Advocate for applicant has placed reliance on the cross examination of the respondent wife. 8. This Court has perused the affidavit of examination-in-chief and cross examination of wife. The cross examination is in fact, no cross examination on the contents of the list. Even one item in the list has not 3 been falsified. 9. In his own evidence, the applicant has not specified the items in the list which he now admits in paragraph no.2 of present application as admitted items and so as to show that rest of the items are disputed. Had that been a fact, he could have candidly admitted the items which he accepts and denied those which he means to deny. 10. On the contrary, the plea of the present applicant is of total denial. He states in his affidavit of examination-in-chief as follows:- “23. I further say and submit that father of the petitioner and her relatives did not give articles at presents to the petitioner and gold ornaments, TV Colour, Fridge, Sofaset, Washing machine, Bed, Dressing Table, Cupboard, Gas, Water Filter and some other gift articles from friend and close relatives. 24. I say and submit that the list filed by the petitioner is bogus bears nobodies signature and gives the wrong details about the names and presents made. I further say and submit that since neither the gold articles nor gifts were in possession of me nor were given to the petitioner offence under section 405 of Code of Criminal Procedure has not been registered against me by the Gittikhadan Police Station, on the basis of report lodged by the petitioner. I say and submit that the case filed by the petitioner is bogus and liable to be dismissed.” [Quoted from page 59 of appeal paper book] 4 11. From what is discussed herein above, it will be clear that the applicant has attempted to play tricks even while applying for stay. He was not honest and candid before the Trial Court, nor is honest before this Court. He even did not bring any other evidence to prove his plea. 12. Thus, the application for stay is without any foundation and does not merit grant of any interim relief by this Court in this application and appeal. 13. Application being without merit is rejected. Rule is discharged. 14. Observations contained in this order are as to what has revealed from record produced with appeal, and what appears prima facie. These observations would not in any manner influence the conclusions as may be reached in the final hearing of appeal on merits. 15. Parties are directed to bear own costs of this application. JUDGE JUDGE //MULEY// 5