spb/- 1 wp8136-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8136 OF 2010 Chandradip Computing Systems, through its proprietor- Mr. P. Samat ... Petitioner. Vs. Western Maharashtra Development Corporation ... Respondent. --- Mr.P.P. Goyal for the Petitioner. . Mr. R.D. Rane for the Respondent. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 16th DECEMBER, 2010. P.C. 1 The writ petition is directed against the order dated 27th August, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge-14, Pune, granting conditional stay to the execution of a decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Dvn.,Pune in a special civil suit no. 177/1994. 2 The special civil suit no. 177/1994 was decreed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division and a money decree was passed in favour of the respondents. The petitioner filed an appeal but beyond a period of limitation alongwith the application for condonation of delay. In the spb/- 2 wp8136-10.sxw application for condonation of delay, the petitioner made interim application for stay to the execution of decree. The appellate court granted conditional stay to the execution of a decree subject to the deposit of Rs. Two lakhs within one month and furnishing security for the remaining amount. The total amount of the decree inclusive of interest comes to Rs. 5,11,854/-. The lower appellate court has directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- which is less than 50% of the amount due under the decree. The discretion exercised by the lower appellant court in directing to deposit a small portion of the amount of the decree cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse, requiring interference in exercise of an extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Ordinarily, the courts do not grant unconditional stay to the execution of a money decree. In the present case, the condition of deposit imposed of less that 50% of the total amount due by no stretch of imagination be said to be unreasonable exercise of the discretion. 3 There is no merit in the petition which is rejected summarily. 4 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has obtained a spb/- 3 wp8136-10.sxw further stay from the executing court by misleading it. In my view, it was improper for the executing court to grant any stay once only a conditional stay was granted by the appellate court. Hence, the executing court shall proceed with the execution proceedings forthwith and no court subordinate to this court shall grant any stay to the execution of the decree. [D.G. KARNIK, J.] .....