(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Civil Application No. 5626 of 2010 (In Writ Petition No. 3924 of 2007) Apex Trading Company, Through its Authorized Representative Mr. Taslim Liyaqat Pawaskar, Age : 40 years, and owners .. Applicant Mr. Avinash s/o. Manharilal Vyas, (Original Respondent Age : - , Occupation : Business. No.5) versus Municipal Corporation of City of .. Non-Applicants Jalgaon, Sardar Vallabhai Patel (No.1 - Original Tower, Navi Peth, Jalgaon, petitioner & through its Commissioner, Nos.2 to 4 - Original and 3 others. respondent nos.2 to 4) ....................... Mr. S.D. Karkare, Advocate, holding for Mr. P.K. Joshi, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate, for Non-Applicant No.1. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 18TH MARCH 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. S.D. Karkare, holding for Adv. Mr. P.K. Joshi, for the applicant, and Adv. Mr. P.R. Patil, for Non- Applicant No.1. 2. This court while passing interim orders in Writ Petition No. 3924/2007 on 14th October 2008, permitted respondent no.5 in Writ Petition i.e. present applicant to take possession of property purchased by him in auction, but then directed him to file undertaking that the same would be subject to the result of the present petition. 3. Petition is filed by the Municipal Corporation of Jalgaon, challenging the auction conducted by D.R.T., claiming that it had some demands on account of taxes and other levies to be recovered from the borrower before D.R.T. whose assets / property were auctioned. 4. Petition is already admitted. According to the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.5, dues of the petitioner are (3) already paid. The petitioner is not accepting this position. 5. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that the present respondent no.5 cannot be discharged at present stage of the matter. If undertaking, as sought for is not obtained, claim of the petitioner may be frustrated. 6. Hence, Civil Application is rejected. Liberty to move again if respondent no.5 is in a position to show that entire amount claimed as outstanding by the petitioner from respondent no.4 is received by it. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ca5626