1 WP 362/2011 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 362 OF 2011 Dongar Tikala Sonawane .. Petitioner V/s Gayasuddin Haidar Lashakari & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Vivek Salunke i/b Mr. Mahesh Rawool for the petitioner. Mr. Sayyed Abbas Sandubhai, Constituted Attorney of respondent no.2, present. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 10TH JUNE 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a judgment debtor. A decree for possession of the suit property which consists of an agricultural land was passed against him. In execution proceeding no. 55 of 1998, a warrant for possession of the suit property was issued against him on 21st August 2010 and was returnable on 30th August 2010. On 30th August 2010, the bailiff went to the suit property for taking possession. However, the possession could 2 WP 362/2011 not be taken as there were standing crops in the suit land the valuation thereof was not made. There was some dispute regarding valuation of the standing crops. By passage of time the crops have been removed and today in the month of June, there are no crops standing in the suit land. There can therefore be no objection for execution of the decree for possession of the agricultural land on the ground that there are standing crops, the value of which has not been determined. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that there is a small structure in the suit property in which the petitioner resides and, therefore, the petitioner may be granted some time for vacating of the suit property. After consulting the petitioner who was present in the Court, learned counsel requested for one year time. Mr. Sayyed Abbas Sandubhai, Power of Attorney holder of the respondent no.2 (heir of the respondent decree holder) is present in the Court and he objects to the grant of such a long time. I indicated to the counsel for the petitioner that I was inclined to grant not more than 3 months’ time subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking in the Court that he would hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property, in respect of which the decree has been passed, at the end of 3 months. Counsel for the 3 WP 362/2011 petitioner, however, submitted that in spite of persuasion the petitioner is not willing to give such an undertaking. In my view, without any undertaking further time for stay of execution cannot be granted. 4. No other objection is raised to the execution of the decree. 5. The execution application was filed in the year 1998. In my view, the petitioner had sufficient time for complying with the decree. There is no valid objection to the execution of the decree. Hence, the writ petition is rejected summarily. 6. It is clarified that if the petitioner hereafter grows any new crops in the suit property, that would be at his own risk and would not be ground for delaying the execution proceedings. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)