1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 29 of 2010 (Dnyaneshwar Suryabhan Dahake ...VERSUS... Ramesh Suryabhan Surkar) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. R.D.Bhuibhar, Advocate for the appellant. Mrs. S.V.Taksande, Advocate for the Respondent. C ORAM : Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATED : 25th March, 2010. Heard Mr. Bhuibhar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Taksande, the learned counsel for the respondent. The Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law :- “Whether the first appellate court was entitled to interfere with the discretionary relief granted by the learned trial court on unsustainable reasons ? Call for R & P. Mrs. Taksande, the learned counsel waives notice of hearing on behalf of respondent-sole. Hearing of the second appeal is expedited. It appears that the respondent has deposited the amount as directed by the first appellate court before the trial court. The respondent would be at liberty to either withdraw the amount or seek direction to place the same in a Fixed Deposit in a nationalised bank during the 2 pendency of this Second Appeal. The withdrawal of the amount by the respondent would not, however, prejudice the case of the respondent before this Court. Similarly, the appellant has also deposited the balance amount of consideration in the trial court in pursuance of the decree passed by the trial court. The appellant is permitted to withdraw that amount without prejudice to the rights of the appellant to canvass that he was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as he has immediately deposited the amount in the trial court after the decree was passed and is withdrawing the same by seeking orders of this Court. JUDGE Civil Application (CAS) No. 60 of 2010. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the judgment passed by the learned trial and appellate court on 06/1/2005 and 15/10/2009, respectively. As the Second Appeal is admitted on a substantial question of law, it would be necessary to restrain the respondent from alienating or creating any third party interest in the suit property during the pendency of this Second Appeal. The order of status-quo granted on 18/2/2010 as regards the suit property to continue during the pendency of this Second Appeal. Civil Application is allowed in aforesaid terms and disposed of. JUDGE. Diwale