Satish S/O Govindrao Khalashe v. Dilip S/O Namdeo Nagrale

(1) 941wp3137.21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.

OF Satish Govindrao Khalashe__ Vs. __Dilip Namdeo Nargrale and ors --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs. Prajakta S. Chaudhari, Advocate for petitioner Mr. K.R.Lule. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 CORAM :

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 15/03/2023 1] Heard Mrs. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lule, learned counsel for the respondent.

2] The petition questions the condition imposed in the order dated 3.10.2018 passed by the learned Appellate Court, of depositing costs of the proceedings, as a condition for grant of stay (pg.55) as well as the order in review dated 15.11.2019, rejecting the review.

3] It is contended that since the judgment and decree of the Trial Court directs the parties to bear their own costs, the learned Appellate Court could not have imposed the said condition.

4] I am afraid, I am not able to agree with this contention for the reason that while granting

(2) 941wp3137.21 stay in exercise of powers under Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC, the Appellate Court is empowered to impose such terms and conditions, as may be deemed fit which would include a condition imposing monetary terms. Merely because the word "costs" is used, that would not change the colour and texture of the condition. The decree indicates that the costs of the defendant was approximately Rs.20,000 and therefore deposit of this amount as a condition for grant of stay cannot be found fault with. No other argument is advanced, considering which I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rvjalit Digitally sign byRAJESH VASANTRAO JALIT Location: