1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2441 OF 2011 Tikaram Donu Bolanwar & others. Vs. Ramkrushna Sampat Maraskolhe & others.. .......................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders .......................................................................................................................................... Mr. A.B. Mirza, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. R.J. Kankale, Adv. for respondents 1 to 3. CORAM : R. M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 14th JULY, 2011. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 05.10.2010, passed by the First Appellate Court, by which order the application for stay Exh. 5 filed by the petitioner was partly allowed to the extent of deleting the direction contained in Clause 4 of the decree. The First Appellate Court directed that the said clause 4 cannot be stayed in view of the fact that a finding has been recorded by the trial court that the plaintiffs are in possession of the property in question. The trial court had also observed that on going through the evidence it has not been established that the defendants forcibly obtained possession from the plaintiff. In the above petition the respondents have filed an affidavit in reply wherein they have stated that in the field in question they have sown Tilly, Dhan and Tuwar in the present season. .....2/- 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner, who is the original defendant in the suit field by the respondents herein bearing Reg. Civil Suit no.12/2001, submits that when it was the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are in possession and in fact they were seeking possession from the defendants, the Appellate Court has erred in not granting stay to clause of the decree. It is required to be noted that the trial court has framed as many as 18 issues. Out of the said 18 issues, issue no. 4, 7, 12 and 13 are relevant in the context of the case of possession of the respondents wherein who were the plaintiffs. The trial court has answered the said issues in favour of the respondents herein i.e. the plaintiffs. Though the decree in question has been challenged by the petitioners herein by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 68/2010, prima facie the exclusion of Clause 4 of the decree from the stay operating in the said Appeal for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order cannot be faulted with. In that view of the matte, no interdiction is called for in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, considering the fact that the parties are at logger heads in respect of the issue of possession, it would be just and proper to expedite the hearing of Reg. Civil Appeal no. 68/2010 which is accordingly directed to be disposed of by the First Appellate Court by 31st of October, 2011. JUDGE Hirekhan ...../-