1 63 wp.9354.11 n 9355.11 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9354 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9355 OF 2011 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. ... Petitioner Versus The Cricket Club of India Ltd. ... Respondent ----- Mr. J.P.Cama, Senior Counsel, a/w Dr. Poornima Adwani a/w Mr.H.V.Kode a/w Mr.Ajay Khaire and Ms Amrita Joshi i/b The Law Point for the Petitioner. Mr. Nusrat Shah a/w Mr.Naresh Ratnani i/b Ashwin Ankhad and Associates for the Respondent. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 12 th December, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2 He has tendered an affidavit of Mr.Rajiv Puri, Territory Manager of the Petitioner. Inviting attention of the Court to the communication dated 2 nd December, 2011 issued by the State 2 63 wp.9354.11 n 9355.11 Government to the Petitioner, he states that the issue of grant of suit property to the Petitioner is under active consideration of the State Government. On instructions he states that the Petitioner is not pressing the petitions on merits. However, he prays that the Petitioner may be protected for a reasonable time as the proposal for allotment is under active consideration of the State Government. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent opposes the said prayer by pointing out that the decree for possession has become final and now there is no ground to show any indulgence to the Petitioner. 3 I have carefully considered the submissions. Perused the annexures to the additional affidavit. It is asserted that the Petitioner – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited is running a petrol pump on the suit property. The correspondence annexed to the additional affidavit tendered today shows that the proposal to allot the suit property to the Petitioner is under an active consideration of the State Government. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, a reasonable time of four months deserves to be granted to the Petitioner while making it clear 3 63 wp.9354.11 n 9355.11 that no further extension can be granted. 4 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The petitions are dismissed as not pressed ; ii. For the reasons recorded earlier, it directed that the decree for possession shall not be executed for a period of four months from today ; iii. It is made clear that no further extension shall be granted ; and iv. It is also made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the allotment claimed by the Petitioner. [ A.S.OKA, J ]