1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR First Appeal No. 568/2010 (Vitthalrao Pandurangji Bole VERSUS Anil Rijhumalji Jethwani) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. U.A. Patil, counsel for the appellant. Shri Anil Mardikar with Shri R.M. Chandak, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JULY 12, 2010 . Heard. ADMIT. Call for Record & Proceedings. Learned counsel Shri Mardikar & Shri Chandak waives notice of hearing on behalf of sole respondent. CAF NO. 1368/2010. Heard. The learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposes the prayer made in the civil application and states that the applicant has sold the property to a third party during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial Court and the said transaction is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel for the non-applicant further states that an amount of 2 Rs.3,74,000/- is deposited in the trial Court in terms of the decree passed by the trial Court on 29.03.2010. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the application for stay needs to be rejected. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the judgment on 29.03.2010, specially because this is a first appeal and this Court would be required to consider all the issues on facts and law including the issue of lis pendens, as raised by the non-applicant, it would be necessary to stay the effect and operation of the judgment dated 29.03.2010 during the pendency of the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent was asked whether the respondent was desirous of withdrawing the amount of Rs.3,74,000/- without prejudice to his case or whether he wanted the same to be deposited in the fixed deposit of a nationalized bank. The learned counsel for the respondent has answered that the second option may be permitted to be utilized. In such circumstances, the judgment passed by the trial Court on 29.03.2010 is stayed. The amount of Rs.3,74,000/- deposited by the respondent in the trial Court may be placed in a fixed deposit account of a nationalized bank initially for a period of three years and the same may be 3 renewed thereafter from time to time during the pendency of the first appeal. The civil application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and disposed of. JUDGE APTE