1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.174/2011 SANJAYKUMAR R. KEDIA ..VS.. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANOTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri L.A.Mohta, advocate for petitioner. Shri CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 13, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the District Judge -1 Akot, granting stay to the decree passed against the petitioner by the trial court on the condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the first appellate court on or before 18.1.2011 and further furnishes security to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- with one or more solvent surety on or before 18.1.2011. Shri Mohta, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Judge -1, Akot committed an error in directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish security to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a poor person and is not in a position to pay the huge amount and would be put to grave and irreparable loss if the order passed by the District Judge on 18.12.2010 2 is not set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Judge has not recorded any reason for imposing the condition of depositing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order dated 18.1.2010, along with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 2.5.2009, it appears that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are ill- founded and the impugned order of the District Judge on 18.12.2010 is perfectly just and proper. It appears that the money decree was passed against the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,90,120/-. Since it was a money decree and since the learned District Judge did not prima facie find any fault with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, after due consideration, the court rightly directed the petitioner to deposit half of the decretal amount and furnish security for the remaining amount. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner should be directed to give security for the entire amount, and should not be asked to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, is liable to be rejected. It can not be said that the order passed by the District Judge is sans reasons as the order passed by 3 the District Judge, clearly reveals that he has perused the judgment and decree dated 2.5.2009 and upon consideration of the same, has prima facie held that because of encashment of the National Saving Certificates of the plaintiff, the present petitioner had been benefitted. The first appellate court observed that it prima facie appeared that the plaintiff was indirectly compelled to satisfy the loan of the petitioner, though the plaintiff was not a surety to the loan. The order passed by the District Judge granting conditional stay is a reasoned order and does not suffer from any error whatsoever. For the reasons aforesaid the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP