1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6424 OF 2009 Sudam Mahadeo Patilhande Petitioner versus Smt.Sunanda wd/o.Ramakant Desai & others Respondents Ms.Jai V. Kanade for petitioner. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Advol i/by A.A.Kocharekar for respondents 1 to 5 CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th July 2009 PC :- 1. Not on board. Taken on board. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5. 2. My attention has been invited to the order dated 25th August 2008 passed by the Apex Court. The order is a self-operative order. The said order dated 25th August 2008 records that if any default is committed by the petitioner in deposit of the amounts as directed, the interim order as granted shall stand vacated. The Small Causes Court has done the exercise of adjudicating whether there is compliance made by the petitioner with the order of the Apex Court. The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court found that the petitioner was in arrears and has not complied with the order of the Apex Court. A revision application was filed against the said order before the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes. By order dated 10th July 2009, the application for stay was rejected, but the Appellate Bench directed that the warrant shall be executed after 27th July 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact there are no arrears. However, the said contention cannot be gone into by this Court considering the prayer made by the 2 petitioner in application dated 6th July 2009 made before the Apex Court. The petitioner has applied before the Apex Court for extension of time to deposit the arrears of Rs.377=03 Ps.. 3. The objection of the learned senior counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 is that in view of the self operative order passed by the Apex Court, no interference can be made. 4. It is true that in the light of the prayer made by the petitioner himself before the Apex Court for grant of extension of time, now this Court cannot entertain the challenge to the impugned orders on merits. At the same time, it must be noted that even the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes while rejecting the application for stay by order dated 10th July 2009 has directed that the warrant shall be executed after 27th July 2009. 5. As the application made by the petitioner is pending before the Apex Court and as the order passed by the Apex Court is a self-operative order, the question of extension of time to deposit the arrears can be considered only by the Apex Court. However, an application made by the petitioner for extension of time to deposit the arrears is pending before the Apex Court. Therefore, the date fixed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes for execution of the warrant will have to be postponed to enable the petitioner to move the Apex Court and to apply for the appropriate relief. 6. The writ petition is rejected. However, it is directed that the warrant of possession ordered to be issued by the Court of Small Causes shall not be executed on or before 05th August 2009. (A.S.OKA, J.)