1 14. WP 5224 of 2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5224 OF 2025 MANISH @ SONU SHIVPRASAD JAISWAL AND ANOTHER VERSUS PRAFULLA S/O SITARAM GOYAL (AGRAWAL) AND ANOTHER Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. S.S. Sohoni, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. D.L. Dharmadhikari a/w Mr. R.M. Pande, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATED : 09th OCTOBER 2025 1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners as well as learned Advocate for the respondents. 2. The petitioners’ challenge is to the order dated 07th December 2024, passed by the appellate court on an application at Exhibit 05, in Regular Civil Appeal No.55 of 2024, thereby directing the petitioners/appellants to deposit the decreetal amount of Rs.20 Lakhs along with interest, as a condition for interim relief to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the petitioners/appellants. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 12th February 2025, passed below Exhibit 08, by which the appellate court has directed the petitioners/appellants to produce various documents in the nature of ITR, balance sheets and details of bank accounts with other documents. 2025:BHC-NAG:90 2 14. WP 5224 of 2025.odt 3. As regards the condition imposed by the appellate court about depositing of amount of Rs.20 Lakhs with interest, which is entire amount of the decree under challenge, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that in view of the position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of Lifestyle Equities C.V. and Anr. Vs. Amazon Technologies INC., Decided on 07th October 2025, the impugned order is not sustainable. However, learned Advocate for the respondents strongly opposes these submissions and submits that the petitioners have failed to make out any exceptional case as required even by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Both the learned Advocates have made elaborate submissions on the point of exceptional case in the light of said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. However, considering the issues involved which need to be decided on the basis of grounds raised in the appeal before the appellate court, it is in the interest of justice that the main appeal itself is expeditiously decided. 5. As regards the impugned order dated 07th December 2024, passed below Exhibit 05, learned Advocate for the respondents, upon instructions, makes a statement that the respondents/decree holders shall not take coercive steps in the execution proceedings for a period of two months and therefore, in view of this statement, no separate orders are required to be passed with respect to the impugned order on the application at Exhibit 05. 3 14. WP 5224 of 2025.odt 6. As regards the impugned order dated 12th February 2025, passed below Exhibit 08, learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that he should be afforded an opportunity to file reply to the application at Exhibit 08, since the documents which are unconnected with the controversy are directed to be supplied. 7. In view of the submissions advanced, the impugned order dated 12th February 2025, passed by the appellate court on the application at Exhibit 08 is quashed and set-aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration on said application. The appellate court is, therefore, directed to consider the request of the appellants to file reply to the application at Exhibit 08, if submitted and thereafter, decide said application afresh at the stage of final hearing of the appeal. 8. Having regard to the entire controversy involved, the appellate court is directed to expeditiously decide Regular Civil Appeal No.55 of 2024, preferably within a period of two months from today. 9. With these directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) asd