1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition no. 5087 of 2011 Sau. Ushtai G. Kadam Vs. Sau. Ashatai Digambar Jadhao - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. V.N. Patre, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK J. DATE : 11 th October, 2011. Heard Shri Patre, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first appellate court did not commit any error in granting conditional stay to the judgment and decree dated 11.3.2010 passed by the trial court in favour of the respondent for partition and separate possession. The suit filed by the respondent for partition and separate possession was decreed by the judgment dated 11.3.2010. The trial court held that the respondent was entitled to separate possession of half share in the suit property. Since the petitioner was seeking a stay to the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 11.3.2010, the first appellate court rightly stayed the judgment and decree subject to the condition that the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- per year in the trial court on or before the 10th of August of every year, till the disposal of the appeal. The first appellate court could have as well imposed the condition in view of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment reported in AIR 1977 Patna 245 and relied on by the learned counsel for the 2 petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE Hirekhan.