- 1 - (G.C.P.)J 455 (5,00,000)-11.2001) Spl-H.C.,A.S.,C.D.,78e IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.7444 of 2004 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders of Coram, appearances, Court’s order or directions and Registrar’s order. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri R.K.Saroj with Shri S.V.Pitre for the Petitioner. Shri Jaydeo S.Deo for the respondents. -- CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J DATED : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2004. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The learned advocate for the respondents state that the bank has already taken possession of the premises pursuant to the order dated 29th July, 2004 passed by the Small Cause Court, Pune, in exercise of powers under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Being so, the present petition has been rendered infructuous. 2. Even otherwise, it is not in dispute that the possession of the suit premises was obtained by the petitioner in execution of the decree of eviction passed on 9th August, - 2 - 1999 as the possession thereof was obtained on 17th February, 2000. It is also a matter of record that in the appeal filed by the respondents against the eviction decree, the lower appellate Court has set aside the eviction decree and has remanded the matter to the lower Court. Once it is established that the possession of the premises was obtained by the decree holder in execution of a decree passed by a trial Court and the appellate Court has set aside the decree, the judgment debtor would obviously be entitled for restoration of possession in a proceeding, in that regard, under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The law in that regard being well settled, there is no case for interference in the impugned order, at this stage. 3. The grievance is sought to be made by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in a writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the lower appellate court, there was a direction to the respondents to file a written statement within the specified time and the respondents have failed to file the said written statement, and that therefore, the respondents should be prohibited from filing - 3 - such written statement. It is not for this Court in this proceeding to pronounce any order in that regard, in case the petitioner is aggrieved on account of failure on the part of the respondents to file written statement within the time specified, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps in that regard in accordance with the provisions of law. 4. In the result, therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. -----