1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR C.A.S. NO. 1067/2010 IN Second Appeal No. 567/2007 (Shyamsunder Mahadeo Khandelwal & 2 others VERSUS Chandraprakash Ramdayal Agrawal & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.R. Mundra, counsel for the applicant/petitioner. Shri B.N. Mohta, counsel for the R-1. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 7 , 2011 . Shri Mundra, the learned counsel for the applicants, states that the trial Court is rejecting the solvent surety of four persons stated in paragraph 3 of the application on the ground that the F.D.R. or Bank Guarantee furnished by these people does not amount to surety but, would be in the nature of security. Shri Mohta, the learned counsel for the non- applicants, states that the four persons mentioned in the civil application have not applied before the trial Court stating therein that they are ready to stand as surety and have, therefore, furnished the Bank Guarantee/F.D.R.s. Shri Mundra, the learned counsel for the applicants, then states that the four persons mentioned in the paragraph 3 of the application would immediately move the executing Court with the desired application stating therein that they are willing to stand as sureties and have, therefore, furnished the Bank Guarantees and F.D.R.s in that regard. 2 In such circumstances, the time to do the needful is extended till 31.01.2011. The civil application stands disposed of. JUDGE APTE