1 1 fa.67.11 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2011 Nilesh Digambar Muttepawar. ... Appellant Versus The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. Yogesh B. Pawaskar i/b Mr.V.S.Kapse for the Appellant. Ms. Motiwala i/b M/s.Motiwala and Company for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 05 th July, 2011. P.C. . Not on board. Taken on board. 2 The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard earlier. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has 2 1 fa.67.11 tendered affidavit-cum-undertaking of the Appellant affirmed today alongwith the statement of arrears. The said affidavit-cum-undertaking is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. 4 It is pointed out in the affidavit that the Appellant alongwith the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 have made an application with the Respondent No.1 for regularization of possession. He has stated that a fresh compromise application in the prescribed format has been filed by the Appellant on 19 th January, 2011. The stand taken by the Respondent No.1 – Trust is that even for consideration of the said compromise application, requisite amount will have to be deposited by the Appellant, which has been quantified in paragraph No.5 of the undertaking tendered today. 5 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant on instructions of the Appellant prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the appeal unconditionally. However, the Appellant will have to be protected till the end of March 2012 so as to enable him to pay the 3 1 fa.67.11 requisite amount to the Respondent No.1. 6 In view of the undertaking and in view of the fact that the Appellant is unconditionally withdrawing the appeal, a limited protection deserves to be granted to the Appellant. 7 Hence, I pass the following order: i. Appeal is dismissed as unconditionally withdrawn ; ii. The undertakings in the affidavit-cum-undertaking tendered today and marked 'X' for identification are accepted. iii. In view of the undertakings, the warrant of possession ordered to be issued against the Appellant in terms of the impugned judgment and decree shall not be executed till the 31 st March, 2012 ; iv. In the event, possession of the Appellant is not regularized by the Respondent No.1 till 31 st March, 2012, without prejudice to the other remedies available to the Respondent No.1, it will be open for the Respondent No.1 to execute the warrant of 4 1 fa.67.11 possession on 1 st April, 2012 ; v. There will be no order as to costs ; vi. The Appellant will be entitled to refund of Court- fees as per the rules ; vii. Civil Application No.108 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]