1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 137 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3387 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 531 OF 2009 1. Ramkishan S/o Sopan Sadale and others .. .. Applicants Versus 1. Subhash S/o Narsing Korkale and others .. .. Respondents Shri A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri N. P. Patil (Jamalpurkar), Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 08TH OCTOBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER [Per B. R. Gavai, J. ] : 1. Heard Shri Bajaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of review petitioners and Shri Jamalpurkar Patil, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. 2 2. Shri Bajaj, learned counsel submits that, the order passed by this Court dated 14th August, 2009 granting stay, has been passed since the applicants therein had suppressed the material facts from this Court. He further submits that the order is contrary to the facts on record. 3. He further submits that, since the decree is in the nature of money decree, same cannot be stayed. He relies on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of M/s. Mehta Teja Singh and Company Vs. Grindlays Bank Limited (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 199. 4. The order under review was passed by this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length. This Court after finding that the suit claiming the amount from the defendants (appellants) was filed after a period of six years from the date on which an award under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act was passed by the Collector and further that, the persons in whose favour award was passed i. e. appellants had already withdrawn the amount had granted stay to the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. 5. It is to be noted that, the suit filed by the plaintiff's was on the basis of their tenancy rights and on the basis of alleged possession of the deceased tenant whose legal heirs they claimed to be. It is found that, the said suit was filed after a period of six years from the date on which an award was passed under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Collector in favour of the owners of the lands. 3 It was further found that, the suit was filed after a long delay from the date on which the amount of compensation was already withdrawn by the original claimants/owners. 6. No doubt that normally this Court would not stay a money decree. However, it is not a rule of law that a money decree can never be stayed. If the Court upon appreciation of the material on record and the judgment and decree under appeal finds prima facie that the judgment and decree suffers from various serious infirmities, this Court would not be precluded to exercise its discretion in staying a money decree. No doubt that this has to be done in very exceptional circumstances and for valid reason. 7. In so far as the reliance on the case of M/s. Mehta Teja Singh and Company cited supra is concerned, firstly it is to be noted that, it is not a judgment of Apex Court, but only an order which is passed in peculiar circumstances brought therein. It does not lay down any proposition of law so as to bind this Court. 8. While passing the order dated 14th August, 2009, two factors weighed with this Court, while granting the stay to the money decree. First was that a suit was filed after a period of six years from the date on which the award was passed by the Collector. Second, the suit was filed after a long period from the date on which the compensation awarded was withdrawn by the original claimants. 9. In that view of the matter no error apparent on the face of the 4 record is found in this order so as to invoke the review jurisdiction. The review petition is devoid of merits. The review petition is therefore, rejected. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/Oct. 09