1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1991 OF 2010 Ghanshyam V. Chaukulkar & Ors. .. Petitioners versus Shashikant V. Chaukulkar .. Respondent Mr.Vishal Kanade i/by Mr.S.S.Gawade for the petitioners. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18th March 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The petitioners are the original defendants. The suit filed by the respondent for possession of a plot of land bungalow has been decreed by the trial Court. An appeal has been preferred by the petitioners for challenging the said decree. By the impugned order, the application for stay made by the petitioners has been allowed and decree for possession has been stayed till the disposal of the appeal subject to the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of the decree till the disposal of the appeal. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have complied with direction regarding payment of mesne profit. He submitted that the reliance placed by the Appellate Court on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pabbathi Venkataramaiah Chetty Vs. 2 Pabbathi N. Rathnamaiah Chetty & Ors [(2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases 151] was completely misplaced as the said decision does not lay down any ratio. 3. I have considered the submissions. The decree for possession relates to a plot of land admeasuring 5763 sq.ft together with building thereon having area of 644 sq.ft. The property is situated within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of the city of Pune. Under Rule 5 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Appellate Court has a power to impose appropriate conditions while granting stay of execution of the decree which is subject matter of challenge in the appeal. Considering the nature of the property in respect of which decree for possession has been passed, the condition imposed by the Appellate Court of deposit of Rs.2,000/- per month appears to be reasonable. It is obvious that deposit of the amount by the petitioners will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to final outcome of the appeal. 4. No interference can be made in power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)