1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2489 OF 2010 Chatarmal Udaji Oswal through his Power of Attorney Holder Deichand C. Oswal Petitioner versus Vijayandra Sharadchandra Manurkar and others Respondents R.N.Sanghavi for petitioner. T.D.Deshmukh for respondent no.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 15th April 2010 PC : 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions of the petitioner states that the petitioner does not intend to press this petition and he is praying that a longer time of more than three years be granted to him to vacate as the entire business of the petitioner depends on the suit premises. The prayer for grant of time to vacate is opposed by learned counsel for the first respondent. 2. The petitioner is not pressing the petition on merits. If the petition is not pressed on merits, the decree will become final. If this petition is to remain pending in this Court for final disposal, considering the pendency of large number of old wit petitions, the petition may not reach final 2 hearing for a period of at least eight to ten years. 3. Considering the aforesaid aspects, time of three years to vacate deserves to be granted to the petitioner, subject to petitioner filing usual undertaking to vacate. 4. Hence, I pass following order :- A) The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn; B) Notwithstanding dismissal of the petition, the decree for possession shall not be executed till 14th April 2013 subject to condition of the petitioner and all the adult members of his family filing usual undertaking to vacate the suit premises within a period of four weeks from today. The undertaking shall be filed in this Court; C) If undertaking as directed is not filed within the stipulated time, the decree for possession shall forthwith become executable. (A.S.OKA, J.)