1 WP 980.2009 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 980 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. G.K.Thigle, Advocate for the petitioner. ............................ CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20/07/2011 PER COURT : 1. The present respondent had instituted Suit for possession, which came to be decreed. Aggrieved thereby, the present petitioner preferred Appeal before the District Court. Along with the said Appeal, the petitioner also filed an application for stay of the decree. The District Judge – 2, Beed partly allowed the said application and stayed the decree to the extent of possession and further directed that the proceedings of determination of mesne profit may gone on. Thereafter, the present respondent filed proceedings under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure [ For short, ‘ the Code ’ ] for determination of mesne profit during the pendency of the said proceedings, the 2 WP 980.2009 petitioner has filed an application purportedly U/s 10 of the Code for stay of the said proceedings till the disposal of the Appeal. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Mr. Thigle, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the substantive appeal is pending before the appellate Court against the decree passed in R.C.S. No. 73 of 2000, then in such circumstances, the proceedings for mesne profit pursuant to the decree passed in R.C.S. No. 73 of 2000 should not be allowed to be proceeded. They are required to be stayed till the disposal of the Appeal. The learned counsel contends that if the Appeal is allowed, the whole exercise of proceeding with the application for mesne profit would be futile. 3. The proceedings for mesne profit are not stayed by the appellate Court, on the contrary, it was observed that only the decree to the extent of possession is stayed and the enquiry regarding mesne profit may proceed. In such circumstances, the application U/s 10 of the Code could not have been considered. 4. When there is no stay by the appellate Court 3 WP 980.2009 for the proceedings of mesne profit, the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application of the petitioner and passing the impugned order. 5. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 980.2009