1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2545 OF 2010 Shaikh Mohammad Husain Ekaram Patel Petitioner Versus Ruksana Shafioddin Shaikh & another Respondents Mr.N.C.Garud, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.R.Karpe, advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 09th April, 2010. P.C.: 1 Suit presented by Respondent No.1 – original plaintiff claiming possession of disputed property came to be decreed by the trial Court in view of judgment and decree dated 25.11.2009 in Regular Civil Suit No.4/2008 and petitioner herein – original defendant no.2 was directed to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of suit plot no.54 to the plaintiff within two months from the date of order. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is subject matter of Regular Civil Appeal No.15/2010 presented at the instance of original defendant no.2 – petitioner herein. 2 In the pending appeal, petitioner presented an application seeking stay to the execution of decree. However, first appellate Court, in view of order passed on 20.02.2010, was pleased to reject the application. The first appellate Court rejected the application in view of decision rendered in Regular Civil Suit No.122/1999. It is observed by the first appellate Court that defendant no.2 has started construction over suit property though he has no title or 2 entitlement to the suit property. In view of the decision rendered in earlier litigation, first appellate court proceeded to reject the application. 3 Petitioner – defendant no.2 has presented an undertaking in this Court and has stated on oath that he will not create any third party interest nor will change nature and character of suit plot till final decision in Regular Civil Appeal No.15/2010 pending on the file of Ad hoc District Judge-2, Ahmednagar. The undertaking tendered by petitioner – original defendant no.2 is accepted, taken on record and marked “X” for identification. Petitioner – original defendant no.2 has also stated on oath that in the event of adverse decision in appeal, he would remove the construction raised by him at his own costs. 4 In view of the undertaking tendered by petitioner, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 herein – original plaintiff, on instructions, has made a statement at bar that plaintiff will not press execution of decree until disposal of appeal pending before first appellate Court. 5 In this view of the matter, no further orders are necessary to be passed in this writ petition. 6 Writ Petition, therefore, stands dismissed. The first appellate Court, however, is directed to decide pending appeal expeditiously and preferably by the end of December 2010. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp254510