1 Cra225.10 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 225 OF 2010 Mrs. Dayali Kusumbia Daya. .. Applicant. Vs Mr. Shapoor R. Khareghat. .. Respondent -- Shri Nitin Mulye for the Applicant. Shri Raj Patel i/by Shri M.P. Patel for the Respondent. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 5TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the Revision Applicant and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Revision Applicant on instructions states that the Revision Applicant does not desire to press the Civil Revision Application on merits but longer time of 3 and ½ years to vacate the suit premises be granted. He submitted that the Applicant is a cancer patient and, therefore, longer time to vacate be granted. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent opposes the prayer. He submitted that the Revision Applicant is not residing in the suit premises and the litigation is being prosecuted by the Applicant’s daughter. He submitted that the Respondent is more than 70 years old and, therefore, 2 Cra225.10 longer time to vacate should not be granted. 3. The Applicant is not pressing the revision application on merits. Even going by the assertions in the plaint, the Applicant is in possession of the suit premises for a long time. As the revision application is not being pressed on merits, the decree for possession shall become final. The Revision Applicant has shown willingness to give usual undertaking to vacate the suit premises. Even if this revision application was to remain pending in this Court for final hearing, the same may not have reached the stage of final hearing for few years. Considering this aspect, time to vacate the suit premises till 31st October, 2012 is granted subject to the condition of the Applicant and her all daughters as well as the Constituted Attorney, who is also a daughter of the Applicant, filing an usual undertaking in this Court to vacate the suit premises. Hence, I pass the following order :- (i) The Revision Application is dismissed as not pressed. (ii) Notwithstanding the dismissal of the Revision Application, the decree for possession shall not be executed till 31st October, 2012 subject to condition of the Applicant and all her daughters filing usual undertaking to vacate the suit premises. (iii) The undertakings shall be filed by the Applicant 3 Cra225.10 herself and her all daughters as well as the Constituted Attorney, who is also her daughter, within a period of six weeks from today. Advance copy of the undertakings shall be furnished to the Advocate for the Respondent. (iv) If undertakings are not filed within a period of six weeks from today, the decree for possession shall become forthwith executable. (v) There will be no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J)