wp6322.11.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.6322/2011 Nirmala Wasudeo Piparande and others -vs- Vyankat Laxman Khade and another ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Shelat, counsel for the petitioners. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 22.12.2011. By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the First Appellate Court on 15/10/2011 staying the decree passed by the trial Court on the condition that the petitioners deposited a sum of rupees fifteen thousand in the First Appellate Court within a period of two months. The petitioners are the original defendants. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for a decree for eviction and possession. The suit was decreed with costs and the petitioner was directed to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within a period of one month. A separate enquiry for mesne profits was also ordered under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioners challenged the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in a first appeal and also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code wp6322.11.odt 2/3 of Civil Procedure for grant of stay to the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The First Appellate Court conditionally stayed the decree. It appears on a reading of the judgment passed by the trial Court and the impugned order dated 15th of October, 2011 that the First Appellate Court was justified in conditionally staying the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The trial Court had directed the petitioners to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property which comprised of a house to the respondent No.1 and since the petitioners had sought a stay of the judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court thought that it was necessary for the petitioners to have deposited an amount of rupees fifteen thousand towards mesne profits. The words ‘mesne profits’ may not have been properly used in the order, but it appears that the First Appellate Court had directed the petitioners to deposit the said amount as a security for occupying the house even after the judgment and decree for possession was passed against the petitioners. The impugned order cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction merely because this Court may have another view of the matter in regard to the condition imposed. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Since the time to deposit the amount has expired and the petitioners had filed the present writ petition challenging the order, on the request made on behalf of the wp6322.11.odt 3/3 petitioners, the petitioners are granted a month’s time to deposit the amount of rupees fifteen thousand in the First Appellate Court. JUDGE KHUNTE