1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 1704 OF 2009 Gopal Ninu Patil .vrs. Sopan Hari Pachpande - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 24 th APRIL, 2009 By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Principal District Judge, Buldhana granting stay to the execution of the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the petitioner and directing the respondent to deliver the possession of the plot to the petitioner. Shri Badhe, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had not produced any documents on record to prove his case and the suit filed by the petitioner was rightly decreed by the trial Court by the judgment dated 01.2.2008. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent was not likely to succeed on the grounds raised by 2 him in the appeal memo filed before the District Judge, Buldhana. In the facts and circumstances of the case, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the First Appellate Court ought to have dismissed the application filed by the respondent for grant of stay to the judgment dated 1.2.2008. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and perused the judgment dated 1.2.2008 as also the impugned order dated 30.12.2008. The First Appellate Court has rightly granted stay to the execution of the decree and delivery of possession of the plot as the First Appellate Court was duty bound to consider the First Appeal on the grounds of facts as well as law. The First Appellate Court had conditionally granted stay in favour of the respondent by the impugned order dated 30.12.2008. The order is extremely just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition fails and is dismissed with costs. JUDGE Rgd