1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10219 OF 2009 Satish Ramchandra Rasal .. Petitioner versus Dattatraya Dadasaheb Gujar .. Respondent Mr.A.R.S.Baxi for the petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 3rd March 2010. P.C.: . The petitioner is the original defendant in a suit filed by the respondent for possession of the suit property. A consent decree was passed in the suit directing the petitioner to hand over possession. Execution application was filed by the respondent. A joint pursis was filed by the parties in execution application. The joint pursis provides that the petitioner agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- with the trial Court on or before 1st September 2009. The pursis provides that if the amount was not deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated time, the petitioner will hand over possession of the property subject matter of decree to the respondent. An application was made by the petitioner before executing Court seeking permission to deposit the amount by extending the period. Another application was made for dismissal of the execution application on the ground of compromise. By the impugned judgment and order, both the applications have been rejected. 2. When this writ petition came up before this Court on 11th December 2 2009, time was sought by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to take instructions in regard to readiness of the petitioner to arrange for the payment of entire balance amount. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner today stated that she has not received any instructions from the petitioner in that behalf. 3. After having considered the submissions, I find no merit in the petition. The pursis at Exhibit 36 does not have effect of recording adjustment of the decree or satisfaction of the decree. The decree could not have been executed only if the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- on or before 1st September 2009. The pursis provides that if amount is not deposited by the petitioner, the respondent/decree-holder can always take possession by executing the decree. 4. Considering the default made by the petitioner, no case for interference is made out. Writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)