WP 677/10 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 677 OF 2010 ( Samabai w/o. Punda Puttewad Vs. Jankabai w/o. Eknath Kolpuse & Ors. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. S.P. Urgunde, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 24th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocate Shri. Urgunde for the petitioner/ judgment debtor. Regular Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff/ decree holder, challenging the part of judgment and decree against him registered as R.C.A.No. 3/2006 is pending before the Hon'ble District Judge, Camp at Ahmedpur. In it petitioner has filed a cross appeal and in that cross appeal he has also sought stay to execution of judgment and decree of Trial Court. Hearing on that application for stay is yet not over. 2. As the Executing Court proceeded further, the petitioner moved an application at Exhs. 31 and 33 in R.D. No. 11/2006 and sought declaration that judgment and decree is null and void. The Executing Court has rejected the prayer and that order is questioned before this Court. 3. Shri. Urgunde contends that till prayer for stay is rejected WP 677/10 2 by the Appellate Court, the judgment and decree cannot be allowed to be executed. He has placed reliance on Order 21, Rule 29 of Civil Procedure Code to substantiate his contention. 4. Order 21, Rule 29 contemplate a total different situation. Here petitioner has not filed any suit against the decree holder. Similarly as his prayer for stay is being considered by the Appellate Court, he has to seek appropriate orders from the Appellate Court. He cannot approach this Court with a grievance that Appellate Court is not deciding his prayer for stay and Executing Court is proceeding further with the execution. The impugned order is passed on applications which sought a declaration that the execution petition itself be declared as null and void. 5. I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. No case is made out for interference. Petition is therefore rejected. However, the Court in which prayer for stay is pending for decision, is directed to decide the same at the earliest. [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ] ssc/wp677.10