1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2121/2010. Mangilal Balmukund Oza . -: versus :- Daghalchand (dead) through LRs. Smt. Laxmibai....... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MAY 03, 2010. Heard Shri D.M. Upadhye, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri H.P. Jaini, learned counsel for respondents. Learned counsel for petitioner states that while condoning the delay no time was prescribed and hence the petitioner moved application seeking leave to deposit cost of Rs. 5000/-. That application has been rejected. According to him, the applicant is a poor person and hence in the interest of justice, the costs should be directed to be accepted and appeal should be directed to be registered. Learned counsel for respondents, states that a decree for partition is passed in the year 2000 and that decree was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal by the present petitioner. Thereafter Commissioner was appointed and final decree is also passed and as per that final decree the execution proceedings are going on. He states that petitioner has got only ½ share in the property and he has taken possession of about 90% portion and is recovering rent also. He points out that in execution, the 2 appeal has been filed almost after 23 months and that delay was also condoned in the interest of justice by the lower Appellate Court. According to him, the petitioner is only interested in delaying the matter. In this background, Shri Upadhye, learned counsel for petitioner was asked whether petitioner will be willing to deposit some more as costs to compensate the respondents in the matter. The other option given to learned counsel was to hand over possession of their due share to respondents, subject to further orders to be passed in the appeal and in execution by the Courts below. Shri Upadhye, learned counsel is not prepared to make any statement in that respect and according to him without instructions he is not in a position to make such statement. I have perused the papers and I find that the petitioner has tried to defeat the execution of decree obtained about 10 years back at every stage and has taken advantage of such technical lapses. It is also clear that while moving the Appellate Court seeking leave to deposit Rs.5000/- no reason whatsoever is given, as to why costs could not be deposited at the earliest. Even before this Court the petitioner is not in a position to show his bonafides. In this situation, as proceedings in execution is still pending, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.