1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7535 OF 2007 Ashish H. Nagewala .. Petitioner Versus Mrs.Pankita P. Jain .. Respondent Mr.T.N.Tripathi for petitioner Mr.Sagar Kasar for respondent CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 8th January 2008 P.C. . Admittedly, petitioner’s application to set aside ex parte decree preferred under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. is pending. During the pendency of that application, petitioner applied for stay of execution of money decree. The trial court having rejected that application, the present petition. 2. Mr.Tripathi, after taking instructions 2 makes a statement that the petitioner original defendant No.3 is willing to secure claim of respondent - decree holder - plaintiff in the suit. Needless to state that if the petitioner furnishes security to the satisfaction of the trial court, then, the trial court to consider and pass appropriate orders staying the execution of subject decree. Needless to state that if the security is not furnished, the execution to proceed. Mr.Tripathi makes a statement that the security would be furnished within four weeks from today. For a period of four weeks, no coercive measures be initiated by the decree holder to execute money decree. If the security is furnished, the trial court to decide the application under Order 9 Rule 13 expeditiously and within a period of three months from the date the security is furnished. Petition disposed of accordingly. 3 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)