1 cra165.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.165 OF 2010 Sunil Dattatraya Pradhan ...Applicant vs. Sadhana Narayan Abhang ...Respondent Mr.Sachin Chavan i/b Mr.Shriram Kulkarni for the applicant Mr.A.P.Vanarse for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. He states that the applicant is present in the Court. On instructions of the applicant he states that the applicant does not desire to press the revision application on merits. However, longer time of three years to vacate be granted. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the said prayer by contending that the decree is on the ground of bonafide requirement. 2 The applicant has made a statement that he is not pressing the revision application on merits. Therefore, the decree will become final. Moreover, the applicant has offered to file usual undertaking to vacate the premises. If this revision application is to remain pending in this Court for final hearing, the same may not reach for final hearing, even by an optimistic estimate within a period of 5 to 6 years. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2006, time to vacate deserves to be granted for a period of two years. 3 Hence, the revision application is disposed of by 2 cra165.sxw passing the following order : i) Revision application is dismissed as not pressed. ii)Notwithstanding the dismissal of the revision application, decree for possession shall not be executed till 14th September 2012 subject to condition of the applicant filing usual undertaking within a period of four weeks from today of the applicant and all adult members of his family to vacate the suit premises with an advance copy to the Advocate for the respondent. If undertakings are not filed in this Court within stipulated period, the decree will forthwith become executable. iii)There will be no order as to costs. JUDGE