SBCWP NO.1546/08. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1546/2008. M/s.Rajasthan Investors Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash Modi and another Date of order:- 19/02/2008. PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri M.C. Jain for the petitioner. BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2) The petitioner who is decree-holder, is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 20/11/2007 passed in the execution application whereby the said appellate court had required the judgment-debtor to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.3,21,000/- for a period of one year and has further directed that in case the appeal is not decided within one year, the bank guarantee would be extendable and further that the decree-holder shall be entitled to get a sum of Rs.1500/- per month as mesne-profit. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that learned appellate court has exercised SBCWP NO.1546/08. 2 the discretion on erroneous consideration. The petitioner has been able to secure a decree in his favour. Since it has attained finality, he cannot be now deprived of fruits thereof. It is argued that the bank guarantee is made for one year which is even extendable for a further period of one year. It is submitted that even after the litigations spread over for last about 17 years, its result would stand frustrated if the same is not allowed to be implemented. The impugned-order passed by the appellate court therefore be set- aside and the amount of decree may directed to be immediately paid to the petitioner. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned-order, I find that the learned appellate court while considering the execution appeal of the respondent has tried to safeguard the interest of the petitioner by requiring the decree-holder to provide the bank guarantee of the entire decretal amount and also furnish undertaking to the effect that he shall pay to the petitioner decree-holder mesne-profit of Rs.1500/- per month. 5) Having regard to the facts of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the appeal court but at the same time it is observed that period of one year, as it is, SBCWP NO.1546/08. 3 for keeping the execution appeal pending is on the higher side, given the fact that litigation is pending, for a period longer than 17 years. It is therefore, impressed upon the appeal court to make efforts to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible but in no case later than six months from now without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observation. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil