Shabuddin Chand Attar And Ors vs Vinayak Popat Shinde And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 760 Bom

                                                                   7.3625.20 wp.doc

ISM
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 3625 OF 2020

      Shabuddin Chand Attar and Others                            ....Petitioners
           V/s.
      Vinayak Popat Shinde and Ors                                .....Respondents

      Mr. S. P. Rajepandhre for Petitioners
      Mr. Vinayak Shinde Respondent in person

                               CORAM :   NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                               DATE:     JANUARY 13, 2021.

      P.C.:

      1]      This Petition is by Defendant to Regular Civil Suit No. 61 of

1993 whose Regular Appeal No. 250 of 2000 is pending adjudication

before the Court below. Petitioner moved an Application Exh. 5

seeking stay to the Judgment and Decree passed in the aforesaid

RCS No. 61 of 1993 which came to be allowed on 18/08/2016 subject

to Petitioner alongwith co-Applicants furnishing bank guarantee of

Rs. 1 Lakh each within one month.

2] Learned counsel submits that Decree passed in the Suit is

subject matter of challenge in Appeal in which the Appellant has fair

7.3625.20 wp.doc

chance of getting succeeded in the said Appeal. According to him in

that view of the matter, District Judge ought not to have put the

Appellant-Defendant to unreasonable condition of bank guarantee of

Rs. 1 Lakh each.

3] Perused the impugned order and reasons furnished therein.

The Suit was initiated in 1993 and the same was decreed on

27/03/2000. Order of injunction is dated 18/08/2016 subject to

compliance of the condition of bank guarantee. Judgment impugned

in the Appeal also includes observation of a separate inquiry be

conducted in the matter of Award of mense proft.

4] In that view of the matter, the condition incorporated while

allowing Exh. 5 Application of the Petitioner about furnishing bank

guarantee of Rs. 1 Lakh by each of the Applicant does not appear to

be unreasonable and that being so, no case for causing any

interference in the order impugned is made out.

7.3625.20 wp.doc

5] Petition as such lacks merit, stands dismissed.

6] Petitioner is permitted to furnishing bank guarantee within

period of 4 weeks from today. Non compliance of the order impugned

i.e. failure in furnishing bank guarantee, will result in ceasing of

operation of Ad-interim order without further reference to the Court.

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]