IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 699 OF 2008 SHRI. VINAYAK MAHADEV RAUL ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. AJIT HARISHCHANDRA KUDNEKAR AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. G.Nagvekar,Adv. for the petitioner. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 29th January, 2009 P.C. 1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been prefered against the order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Bicholim, on an application moved by the judgment debtor to stay the execution proceedings. 3.The appellant/decree-holder had instituted a suit for injunction restraining the judgment-debtor/respondent from digging trenchas etc. in the suit property and erecting any kind of structure. The suit was decreed. 4.The respondent had preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree. The appeal came to be dismissed and the judgment and decree pased by the trial court was confirmed. 5.This judgment and decree passed by the trial court was put to execution. When notice was served on the judgment debtor/respondent, he raised an objection that he has filed proceedings before the Mamlatdar to declare him as Mundkar and therefore, he prayed that until those proceedings are decided, the execution be stayed. 6. The learned judge of the trial court relying on the decision of this court in 2001(1) GLT 3 (Subha Venkatesh Kamat v. Vasu Naik and ors.) held that the execution needs to be stayed until issue of Mundkar is decided by the concerned authority. It seems from the judgment and order of the trial court that the trial court had relied basically on the decision of this court. The Trial court was bound to follow the decision rendered by this court and rightly stayed the execution of the decree until final decision in Mundkar application pending before the Mamlatdar. 7.The leaned counsel for the appellant has contended before me that granting such a stay would be reopening of the decree. I need not go into this question, since the question as to whether a decree should or should not be stayed has to be decided by this court in the above referred decision and I am also bound by the said decision. I do not propose to take contrary view. Therefore, there is no substance in the writ petition. It is dismissed in limine. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. PZC