Shri. Vinayakrao S/O. Panjabrao ... vs Sau. Ranjana Arvind Deshmukh And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 7165 Bom

                                     1
                                                               wp1597.16.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                            
                 NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                    
                       Writ Petition No.1597 of 2016

      Shri Vinayakrao s/o Panjabrao Pundkar,
      Aged 64 years, Occupation - Agriculturist




                                                   
      & Business, R/o Sankalpa Nagar,
      Rahatgaon, Tq. and Dist. Amravati.               ... Petitioner

           Versus




                                         
      1. Sau. Ranjana Arvind Deshmukh,
         Aged about 60 years,
         Occupation - Household,
         R/o Mahaganpati Apartment,
         Ganediwal Layout,
                            
         Camp. Amravati.

      2. Sandip Purushottam Gawande,
         Aged about 40 years,
      

         Occupation - Service,
         R/o C/o P.T. Gawande, Karde
   



         Nagar, Near Hollywood Colony,
         Infront of Rangoli Lawn, Kathora
         Road, Amravati, 
         Tq. and Dist. Amravati.                       ... Respondents





      Shri S.S. Shingane, Advocate for Petitioner.
      Shri R. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondents.





                    Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.

th Dated : 13 December, 2016

wp1597.16.odt

Oral Judgment :

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The Trial Court passed a decree for damages of

Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum for

malicious prosecution. This decree is the subject-matter of

challenge in the appeal. The lower Appellate Court, without

imposing any condition, has stayed the decree passed by the Trial

Court. This is contrary to the well-settled principles of law. The

Trial Court at least should have asked for security for payment of

the decretal amount. The order, therefore, needs to be modified.

3. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The order

dated 27-10-2015 passed by the lower Appellate Court below

Exhibit 16 in Regular Civil Appeal No.150 of 2014, is modified,

and a condition is put that within a period of four weeks from

today, the respondents to furnish solvent security to secure the

decretal amount to the satisfaction of the lower Appellate Court.

wp1597.16.odt

If such security is not furnished within a stipulated period, the

decree passed by the Trial Court shall become executable.

4. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs.

JUDGE.

Lanjewar