1 WP 5889/09 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5889 OF 2010 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. A.A. Valsangkar i/b Mr. Pankaj Das for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 13TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 16 March 2009 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge­3, Solapur, granting only partial stay for execution of the decree and further order dated 16 February 2009 rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for modification of the earlier order. 3. The suit property is a three storeyed 2 WP 5889/09 building. The petitioner is in possession of the ground floor. The respondent is in possession of the first floor and a partnership firm in which the petitioner, the respondent and their third brother are partners, appears to be in possession of the second floor. The petitioner filed a suit against the respondent claiming possession of the first floor. The respondent resisted the suit and made a counterclaim for partition of the suit property claiming half share in the entire property. The petitioner’s suit was dismissed and the counterclaim of the respondent was allowed. The Court declared that the respondent had half share in the suit property and further directed that actual partition be effected in the final decree proceeding. Aggrieved by the preliminary decree, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Court and prayed for the stay of the execution of the decree. The lower appellate court declined to stay the proceeding of the final decree but only granted stay to the extent 3 WP 5889/09 of delivery of possession. By filing another application, the petitioner sought modification of that order. That application was rejected. Both these orders are impugned in this petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that arbitration proceedings were pending in respect of the partnership business which is being carried out on the second floor of the property and grant of stay to the execution of the decree was necessary but it would cause prejudice to the petitioner in the arbitration proceedings. I am unable to agree. In my view, the interests of the petitioner are sufficiently protected. The trial court has granted stay for the delivery of possession which, in my view, protects the interest of the petitioner. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)