IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLIATION NO. 4313 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 766 OF 2010 Satish s/o Devanand More & others .. APPLICANTS VERSUS Harieetsing s/o puransingh Chugh .. RESPONDENT Miss Maya R. Jamdhade, advocate for the applicants. Mr. G.N. Chincholkar, advocate for respondent. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 28 th JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : 1 This is an application by original defendants / applicants herein claiming stay of execution of decree passed by the 2 nd Jt. Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Nanded on 21-1-2010 in Special Civil Suit no. 39/2009. 2 Suit was presented by plaintiff claiming specific performance of agreement and for declaration that compromise decree passed in Regular Civil Suit no. 90/2009 is not binding on the plaintiff. Plaintiff also claimed decree of injunction against defendants restraining them from interfering in his possession. Trial court, after considering the evidence placed on record by the parties, was pleased to grant decree in favour of the plaintiff. Appeal is being presented by the defendants against said decree which is admitted. 3 In view of admission of appeal, direction contained in decree in respect of securing execution of the sale-deed from defendant nos. 1 and 2 needs to be stayed. So far as decree in respect of perpetual injunction granted in favour of plaintiff is concerned, on perusal of the judgment, it is found that the issue in respect of handing over of possession to plaintiff by defendants on execution of the agreement is answered in affirmative. Trial court, while answering issue no. 3 has observed on appreciating the evidence placed on record by the parties that the possession of the disputed property has been handed over to plaintiff. Apart from this aspect, it appears that during pendency of Special Civil Suit no. 39/2009, an application was preferred by plaintiff at exh. 6 claiming an order of temporary injunction against defendants which was allowed by the 3 rd Jt. Civil Jude, Sr.Dn., Nanded on 17-4-2009. Order passed by the trial court was challenged in this court by filing Appeal From Order no. 45/2009. However, this court, directed disposal of the suit at the earliest. Apart from this aspect, it is observed by the trial court that agreement to sell as well as documents evidencing handing over of possession have been proved by the plaintiff. Trial court has also recorded finding in respect of passing over consideration amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff. Considering these aspects, I am of the opinion that decree passed by the trial court restraining defendants from obstructing peaceful possession of plaintiff need not be stayed. So far as the direction contained in paragraph no. 5 of the operative portion entitling plaintiff to receive an amount of rs. 28,325/- and further amount of rs. 6,288/- is concerned, the same shall stand stayed and entitlement of plaintiff to receive the amount shall be subject to final disposal of the appeal. Ad-interim relief granted by this court earlier thereby staying direction contained in paragraph no. 2 of the operative portion of the order is confirmed. Direction contained in paragraph no. 5 of the operative portion of the judgment also stands stayed. The amount deposited with the trial court shall be invested in fixed deposit initially for a period of three years and the fixed deposit receipt shall be renewed thereafter until disposal of appeal. Civil application stands disposed of. 4 In view of disposal of instant civil application, no further directions are necessary to be issued to the trial court. As such, Civil Application no. 2649/2011 presented by defendants also stands disposed of. Trial court shall pass suitable order in consonance with the order passed today in the instant civil application. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb