1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5408 of 2011 M/s Horizan Trading Corporation and others. Vs. ABCO Villa Hortense - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.S. Mardikar, counsels for the petitioners. Mr. A.V. Muley, Adv. for respondent sole. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 7 th December, 2011. Heard. By this petition, the petitioners impugn an order passed by the first appellate court on 14.10.2011 granting conditional stay to the decree passed by the trial court. According to the petitioners, the condition imposed by the first appellate court of depositing 50% of the decretal amount and 50% of license fee was unreasonable and ought not have been imposed. The petitioners are the original defendants. The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for eviction, possession and arrears of license fee was decreed by the trial court. The petitioners were directed to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent-plaintiff. The petitioners were also made liable to pay the license fee to the tune of Rs. 2,07,600/- to the plaintiff within a period of three months. The petitioners challenged the judgment passed by the trial court in an appeal and also sought for stay of the judgment. The first appellate court, by the impugned order dated 14.10.2011 allowed the application for 2 grant of stay on the condition that the petitioners deposited 50% of the decretal amount of Rs. 2,07,600/- and 50% of the license fees as occupation charges on or before 5.11.2011. The order granting conditional stay is impugned in the instant petition. There is nothing wrong with the order passed by the first appellate court in granting stay to the judgment and decree for eviction and possession on the conditioin that the petitioners paid 50% of the decretal amount of Rs.2,07,600/- and 50% of the license fee before 5.11.2011. In fact, while granting stay to the decree for possession, the court had also partly stayed the money decree passed in favour of the respondent. The petitioners could not have been aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.10.2011, as by the said order the money decree was partially stayed and the petitioners were directed to deposit only 50% of the amount payable under the judgment and decree. The order directing the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.25,950/- per month as occupation charges cannot be said to be illegal. The order is extremely reasonable and cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to courts. JUDGE Hirekhan.