1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2076 of 2010 (Abdul Mazid (Dead), through L.Rs. Shama Unissa Begum and others v. Shamin Ahamad and others) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri S.L. Kotwal, Advocate for Petitioners. Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Dated : 29 th April, 2010 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. One of the contentions is that as the father of the petitioners has been impleaded as non-applicant No.2 in MANRJE proceedings, the applicants/petitioners are not in a position to get the amount of auction deposited by the auction purchaser. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that because of this difficulty, the applicants/petitioners are not in a position to vacate. According to him, therefore, reasonable time should be given to the petitioners to vacate after the amount is paid to them. The facts show that the property was put to auction in accordance with law. Respondent No.1 has purchased that property and has also deposited the necessary amount with the Court in accordance with law. The sale certificate is also issued in his favour. In these circumstances, he is entitled to possession. If petitioners are not in a position to withdraw the amount deposited, he cannot be made to suffer. I do not find anything wrong with the impugned order dated 25-3-2010. The request for grant of time to vacate was not made before the 2 Trial Court and that request is made for the first time before this Court. If it is open to the petitioners, they can still move application to the Trial Court. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Judge. pdl