:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1181 OF 2008 Smt.Harpeet Charanjeet Singh and Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Neena K.Khatri and Ors. ....Respondents ====== Mr.M.P.Vashi i/by.M/s. M.P.Vashi and Associates, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.D.B.Sawant, Adv. for the respondent nos.1 to 6. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 5TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. This Writ Petition is by the Original Appellants/Obstructionist before the Small Causes Court. 2. An order was passed by the Trial Court on 31.10.2007 in Misc.Notice No. 180 of 2006 in R.A.E.Suit no. 286/713 of 2002 and Obstructionist Notice No.11 of 2006 in that suit. The Miscellaneous Notice is discharged whereas the Obstructionist Notice :2: :2: :2: is made absolute. 3. The Decree Holder was permitted to execute the Decree and the petitioners were directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises within a period of 3 months. On 31.10.2007 this order was passed, against which an Appeal is preferred before the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes and the same is pending. The Stay Application was preferred therein and the request was to stay the order of the Trial Court in the Obstructionist proceedings. The stay has been granted on the condition that the petitioners deposits a sum of Rs.6,06,280/- on/or before the date stipulated in the impugned order. 4. Mr.Vashi, has taken me through the grounds in the Memo of Appeal. He has also contended that the Original Defendant was Respondent no.7 to this Appeal. There is a dispute with regard to the identity of the suit premises/property. He has invited my attention to an order passed on 22.09.2005 by the trial court on a request made to correct the Decree. He submits that the said Application made by the Decree Holder is :3: :3: :3: rejected. He submits that considering such circumstances, the lower Appellate Court should not have imposed the condition of deposit of Rs.6 lacs. That Apart, he submits that there are no reasons assigned, nor, there is any material to support the figure of Rs.6,06,000/-. 5. Mr.Sawant, appearing for the Decree Holders supports the impugned order and submits that the Obstructionists are occupying the premises free of charge. Even the society charges are being paid by the Decree Holders, although, the Decree Holders are deprived of the use and occupation of the premises. 6. After having perused the petition and the Annexures thereto, so also, the impugned order, in my view, the lower Appellate Court ought to have assigned cogent and satisfactory reasons for imposing the condition. There is no reference to the rival contentions nor there are any reasons to support the ultimate conclusion. 7. However, after the matter was argued for some time, both sides agree that without prejudice to the rights :4: :4: :4: and contentions in the pending Appeal, the following order can operate as an interim order during the pendencey thereof :- (i) There will be a stay of the execution of the order of the Executing Court in the Obstructionist proceedings, subject, to the petitioners/original Appellants depositing a sum of Rs.1 lacs in the Trial/Executing Court within a period of six (6) weeks from today. Further, the petitioners to reimburse the Decree holders the sum of monthly maintenance/out-goings which are to be paid to the Co-operative Housing Society. Such reimbursement will be made upon the Decree Holder intimating to the petitioners the fact of payment of the monthly outgoings by him and submitting proof in that behalf. The petitioners should reimburse the sums within a period of 15 days from the date of intimation and proof from the Decree Holders in that behalf. :5: :5: :5: (ii) The petitioners confirm before me that they are in possession of the said premises and that they shall not alienate, encumber or create third party rights therein, until, the Appeal is heard and disposed off. In default of deposit of Rs.1 lacs or in default of payment/reimbursement as indicated above, the Decree Holder shall be at liberty to apply to the Appellate court for vacating the stay and that Application would be considered uninfluenced by the order passed by this court. 8. This interim order shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides in the pending Appeal including on the Issue of Identity of the suit property. 9. The Appellate Court to endeavour and dispose off the Appeal as expeditiously as possible and within a period of 6 months from the date of production of a copy of this order. :6: :6: :6: sd/- **********