- 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 FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. CONTINUATION SHEET. CONTINUATION SHEET. SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.133 OF 2005 NO.133 OF 2005 NO.133 OF 2005 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court’s Court’s or orders or directions Judge’s orders & Registrar’s orders. ............................................................. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : FEBRUARY 23, 2005. : FEBRUARY 23, 2005. : FEBRUARY 23, 2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Shri Bodake for the Appellant. The Appellant is an obstructionist. Even according to the case of the obstructionist, he has entered into a transaction with original defendant during the pendency of the suit filed by the decree holder. Shri Bodake submitted that against the decree in execution the Judgment Debtor preferred an appeal and in Appeal there was a compromise. In view of compromise, decree could not have been executed. 2. I have perused the compromise and the order passed by the Appellate Court on the Appeal preferred by the Judgment Debtor. In view of the compromise, appeal has been disposed of without setting aside or modifying the decree of the Trial Court. Hence, there is no merit in the said - 2 - submission. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below against the Appellant. 3. No substantial question of law arises. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE. JUDGE. JUDGE.