( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed challenging order dated 24. 08. 2007 made by Gujarat State Co. operative Tribunal, Ahmedabad (the Tribunal) in Stay Application exhibit 4 in Appeal No. 121 of 2007 arising out of Lavad Suit No. 3155 of 2002 instituted by respondent No. 1 Bank. ( 2 ) IT is an accepted position that respondent No. 2 is a proprietary concern of respondent No. 3, who is wife of the petitioner. The petitioner is a guarantor to the loan transaction whereunder financial facility was availed of by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 4 is the other guarantor. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Bank filed Lavad Suit No. 3155 of 2002 against respondent Nos. 2,3, 4 and the petitioner. The said suit came to be decreed by the Board of Nominees on 09. 03. 2007 for a sum of Rs. 3,35,690. 25 ps. with interest @ 19. 5% from 20. 11. 2002 till the date of recovery. However, vide the same order Board of Nominees discharged the petitioner (defendant No. 3 ). Respondent No. 1 Bank preferred Appeal No. 121 of 2007 before the Tribunal accompanied by an application for stay of operation of the judgment and award of the Board of Nominees to the extent the same was operating in favour of the petitioner and against respondent No. 1 Bank. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal has partly granted application exhibit 4 in Appeal No. 121 of 2007 in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The operation of the order made by the Board of Nominees to remove the seals from the property of the petitioner and handing over possession of the property to the petitioner has been stayed by the Tribunal on the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- with respondent No. 1 Bank within a period of one month from the date of the order, while simultaneously directing the petitioner to maintain statusquo in so far as the said property is concerned till disposal of the appeal and not create any encumbrance on the property, nor transfer or alienate the property. The Tribunal has further directed that in the event the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of Rs. The Tribunal has further directed that in the event the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- within the period of one month from the date of the order the property in question shall be kept sealed and in the same condition by respondent No. 1 Bank. ( 5 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of the Tribunal on the ground that the suit filed by respondent No. 1 Bank is barred by principles of Resjudicata and limitation. In relation to the ground of Resjudicata it was contended that originally respondent No. 1 Bank had filed Lavad Suit No. 2559 of 1991 which was disposed of on 07. 06. 1995 for want of prosecution and respondent No. 1 Bank cannot bring a second suit for the same cause of action. That the Tribunal has wrongly placed reliance on communication dated 30. 01. 2002 stated to have been written by the petitioner undertaking to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- immediately and balance amount subsequently, and so called failure on part of the petitioner to comply with the undertaking given in the said letter dated 30. 01. 2002. It was submitted that, without prejudice to various contentions raised regarding validity of the said letter dated 30. 01. 2002, even if the petitioner is found to have addressed such a communication to respondent No. 1 Bank the same would not lift the bar of limitation considering the fact that the original suit had been instituted in 1991 which had already been decided. Following decisions have been relied upon in support of the submissions made, more particularly in relation to the grounds of Resjudicata and limitation. (1) G. E. B. Vs. Saurashtra Chemicals 2004 (1) GLH 66 . (2) Lalubhai Hirabhai Patel and Anr. V/s. Indo-Japan Industries and Ors. 2001 (3) GLR 2254 . (3) N. V. Srinivasa Murthy and Ors. V/s. Mariyamma (2005)5 SCC 548 . (4) V. M. Salgaocar and Bros. V/s. Board of Trustees of Port of mormugao and Anr. (2005)4 SCC 613 with special reference to paragraph 20 of the judgment. A further contention was raised that in any view of the matter the condition to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- was unwarranted and even if such condition had to be imposed the amount directed to be deposited was excessive. (2005)4 SCC 613 with special reference to paragraph 20 of the judgment. A further contention was raised that in any view of the matter the condition to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- was unwarranted and even if such condition had to be imposed the amount directed to be deposited was excessive. ( 6 ) BEFORE proceeding to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner it is necessary to take note of the fact that along with the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 Bank against order of discharge of the petitioner made by Board of Nominees, another appeal has also been filed, being Appeal No. 142 of 2007 by the principal borrower challenging the judgment and award made by the Board of Nominees against the principal borrower and other guarantor. In the appeal filed by the principal borrower also an application for stay of operation of the judgment and award (exhibit 4) was moved by the principal borrower and one of the grounds raised in the said appeal and the application for stay is the ground of suit being barred by Resjudicata. ( 7 ) THE Tribunal has while dealing with the applications for stay vide consolidated order dated 24. 08. 2007 observed in relation to the plea of Resjudicata that the said issue is an issue which is based on facts and leading of evidence and thus is a mixed question of facts and law and can be decided only when the appeals are heard finally. ( 8 ) IN relation to communication dated 30. 01. 2002 addressed by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 Bank the Tribunal has found that not only has the petitioner not complied with the undertaking expressed in the said communication, but has also declined to have the said communication and the signature therein verified by a hand writing expert. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has found that considering the relationship of the petitioner and the principal borrower, viz. of being husband and wife, on ground of equity also the order of discharge qua the petitioner cannot be justified prima facie and the petitioner should be put to terms to ensure that the property in question is not disposed of during pendency of the appeal. of being husband and wife, on ground of equity also the order of discharge qua the petitioner cannot be justified prima facie and the petitioner should be put to terms to ensure that the property in question is not disposed of during pendency of the appeal. Repelling the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner and the principal borrower have been staying apart since number of years the Tribunal has found that apart from such statement there is no evidence of any legal separation or annulment of the marriage and in absence of such evidence the relationship would exist. ( 9 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 Bank in its appeal has challenged the findings of the Board of Nominees that it was due to negligence of respondent No. 1 Bank that the petitioner (defendant No. 3) stood discharged. The appeal is continuation of the original proceedings and the findings thereon are susceptible to challenge. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in ensuring that the appeal is not rendered infructuous by permitting operation of the order of the Board of Nominees qua the petitioner during pendency of the appeal. ( 10 ) DURING course of hearing one more submission was to the effect that no such similar conditions have been imposed on the principal borrower or other guarantor. This contention requires to be recorded only to be rejected. The Board of Nominees has passed judgment and award against principal borrower and the other guarantor and their appeal is pending but the judgment and award operate without any stay and therefore, it would be open to respondent No. 1 Bank to initiate recovery proceedings, if so desired in absence of any stay of operation. Hence, there would be no need to impose any condition on the said persons. ( 11 ) IN the aforesaid set of facts and circumstances of the case, in absence of any legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 24. 08. 2007 made by the Board of Nominees below application exhibit 4 in Appeal No. 121 of 2007 no interference is warranted in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is accordingly summarily rejected.