1 CA 9179/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD C.A. NO. 9179/2011 IN F. A. NO. 731/2002 NANDKISHOR TAKHATRAM VYAS THROUGH GPA HOLDER SATYANARAYAN GOPALDAS KHATOD VS. RAMCHANDRA CHAGNLAL JOHI Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. L.V. Sangit for respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATED : 22nd August, 2011. PER COURT: 1. Heard. 2. The application is made for continuation of the stay which was granted on 07/08/2002. The respondent / plaintiff has filed the suit for possession of the suit premises, from the defendant i.e. the appellant who is running the mess. The suit was decreed against which present appeal is filed. While deciding application for stay, this Court has granted conditional stay. The Court has specifically mentioned that the appellant shall deposit amount of Rs.3,000/- per month in the Civil Court, on every 10th day of the month and if for successive two months, amount is not paid, stay shall stand vacated automatically without reference to the Court. Record shows that the applicant failed to pay amount of Rs.3,000/- successively on three occasions. Such incidents have taken place in November, 2010, December, 2010, and April, 2011. The failure to deposit these amounts on these dates are admitted by the applicant. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent while vehemently opposing the application for stay, pointed out that the applicant has failed to comply with the order 2 CA 9179/2011 passed by this Court and so the stay was vacated. Besides, he has produced a document consisting of the copies of Criminal complaints filed against the present appellant by him, his wife and also by the Inspector under Food Adulteration Act. He submits that the premises were given to the applicant under the Leave and Licence in the year 1995 and the said written agreement was not renewed any time by the respondent / plaintiff. 3. The suit was decreed in the year 2002. As per the order passed by this Court in the year 2008, the appellant is depositing amount of Rs.3,000/- barring these three incidents of defaults. As he failed to deposit and did not comply with the order of this Court, rightly stay was deemed to be vacated. The other Criminal complaints pending against the appellant, may fall under the nuisance and it has no relevance while deciding this application at this stage. Though the applicant has not complied with the orders of this Court for thee instances, in view of the pendency of the appeal and considering the length of the litigation between the parties, this Court thinks it fit in the interest of justice to fix the matter for final hearing peremptorily on 20th September, 2011. Till then the respondent shall stay off his hands, from execution of any order against the appellant. 4. The order of depositing the amount of Rs.3,000/- is to be obeyed by the appellant. 5. Civil Application is disposed of. [SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] ts k/2011/August22/ca9179.11 3 CA 9179/2011