Order 1

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: 1 (Ord) exhibit 18 in Appeal No.66 of 2022
CNR No.MHSCA30003752022
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BOMBAY
(APPELLATE COURT)
(BANDRA BRNACH)
Order below exhibit 18
In
A1-Appeal No. 66 of 2022
In
R.A.E & R Suit No.470/1085 of 1996
Shri.Sudhirkumar Rajasingh ...Appellant
(Orig. Defendant)
Versus
01. Shri.Shyamlal Matabhikh Yadav ... Respondent
(Orig.Plaintiff)
Advocates appeared :
Mr.D.D.Singh, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr.V.S.Yadav, Advocate for Respondent.
Coram : M. S. Pathan,
Addl. Chief Judge
&
D. S. Dabhade, Judge
C.R. No.31
I/c. C.R.No.41,
Date : 28.08.2023
: O R A L O R D E R :
(Per M. S. Pathan, Addl. Chief Judge)
Heard learned advocate appearing for appellant
Mr.D.D.Singh. Perused the application.
2. It appears that, Appeal No.66 of 2022 was preferred against
the Judgement and order passed in RAE & R Suit No.470/1085 of 1996.
The appellant has moved an application below exhibit 6 for staying the
operation and execution of the impugned Judgement and order under
Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC. The matter was kept for placing on record
-- 1 of 2 --
2 (Ord) exhibit 18 in Appeal No.66 of 2022
the valuation report. However,in between, respondent appears to have
taken out Execution Application No.57 of 2023, whereupon the warrant
of possession was also issued. In fact, when the matter is pending
before the Appellate court, and the stay application is also very much in
process of hearing, the respondent and learned trial Judge ought to
have slow. In view of this, the possession warrant issued by the learned
trial Judge is called back. Intimate to the learned trial Judge
accordingly.
I agree
Sd/- Sd/-
(D.S. Dabhade) (M.S. Pathan)
Judge Additional Chief Judge
Court Room No.31 Court Room No.31
I/c.Court Room No.41 I/c.Court Room No.41
Dt.28.08.2023 Dt. 28.08.2023
-- 2 of 2 --