:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3809 OF 2004 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3808 OF 2004 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1151 OF 2004 Smt. Anusuiya Dayanand Shetty. ..Applicant. Vs. Shyamlal R. Yadav. ..Respondent. Mr. S.D.Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM: R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 10th November,2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Both the civil applications can be disposed off by this common order. Civil Application No.3809 of 2004 is for stay of money decree, whereas, the Civil Application No.3808 of 2004 is for dispensing with the requirement of deposit of the decretal amount. 2. Heard both the parties at length. 3. Rule in both the applications made returnable forthwith and the both the applications are heard finally. The first appeal is directed against the money decree directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest to the plaintiff. On perusing the record, I find that in the written statement, the contention of the defendant was that she :2: had not received the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- but had received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. At the stage of evidence in the suit she filed an affidavit inter alia contenting that she has not received any amount and her son has pressurised her to file the written statement. In the affirmation before the court in the written statement she stated that she has not put her signature on the written statement. She however, admitted in her evidence that she has signed the written statement. It is seen that on the basis of such statement in the verification clause, on the same i.e. on 12.2.2005, the trial court recorded her examination in chief afresh and she was allowed to be cross examined . In her substantive evidence however, she then took contention that written statement was never signed by her. This assertion was totally contradictory to what she had stated on the same day before the Joint Civil Judge, S.D.,Thane. At the stage of evidence, documentary evidence has been produced to indicate that she has received an amount of Rs.2,25,000/-. This document is consists of affidavit as well as acknowledgment. As the Trial Court has correctly observed that signature on this document is tallying with the signature of the written statement. It is now sought to be contended that, in fact, her son had taken the money from the plaintiff and he had deprived of his own mother for the benefit. This contention cannot be accepted. It is sought to be contended that the benefit of the Bombay :3: Amendment to Order XXXXI Rule 1 should be given as the same confirms the discretion of the court to direct security instead of directing the deposit of the amount. In the facts of this case, I am not inclined to exercise any such discretion. In the circumstances, relief as claimed in the aforesaid civil applications cannot be granted and hence, rule in both the civil applications stand discharged. Both the applications are disposed off. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)