ash 1 revptnst-16537n16539.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION ST. NO. 16537 OF 2011 ARISIN FROM CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 383 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 216 OF 2011 IN REVIEW PETITION ST. NO. 16539 OF 2011 ARISING FROM CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 382 OF 2010 M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation. .. Petitioner Vs Cricket Club of India Limited. .. Respondent -- Shri D. Khambata, Sr. Counsel along with Shri Minoo Siodia along with Shri Agrawal Nikhil and Shri Kaushik N. Singh i/by Rustomji and Ginwala for the Petitioner. Shri Vijay Thorat, Sr. Counsel along with Shri Ranjit Shetty and Shri Luckyraj Indorkar i/by Hariani & Co. for the Respondent. -- CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 28TH JUNE, 2011 P.C. Not on board. Taken on board. . Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The prayer made in both the Review Petitions is identical. Prayer (a) of the Review Petition Stamp No.16537 of 2011 reads thus:- (a) That the order dated 5th October, 2010 be reviewed and modified to the extent that para 9 ash 2 revptnst-16537n16539.11 which reads ‘that the decree for possession shall not be executed till the end of June, 2011’ be modified to read as “that the decree for possession shall not be executed until the final disposal of the Application No.402/2011 in Suit No.277/2001 filed before the Small Causes Court at Mumbai including appeals, if any thereunder and for four weeks thereafter.” 2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the judgment and order dated 13th May, 2011 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4422 of 2011. The contention of the Review Petitioner is that on the basis of the said decision of the Apex Court, an application has been moved before the Small Causes Court in the original suit. The limited prayer in this Review Petition is for modification of the order of this Court to the extent that the execution of the decree for possession should remain stayed till the final disposal of the said Application. 3. On the basis of the subsequent decision of the Apex Court, no case is made out for review. It is for the Review Petitioner to prosecute the application filed before the Court of Small Causes. To enable the Review Petitioner to prosecute the said application and to apply for appropriate relief therein, it is directed that the decree for possession shall not be executed till 12th August, 2011. Subject to this, the Review Petitions are rejected. 4. It is made clear that this Court has not made any ash 3 revptnst-16537n16539.11 adjudication on the merits of the Application made before the Court of Small Causes and all the contentions of the parties in that behalf are kept open. ( A.S. OKA, J )