1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Application (L) No. 236 of 2010 IN Writ Petition No. 2359 of 2009 WITH Writ Petition No. 2359 of 2009 Dolly J. Tafty ...Applicant v/s. 1. Shri Amarsen Mansen Goragandhi 2. Shri Pritisen Mansen Goragandhi ...Respondents Mr. D.G.Dhanure with J.D. Dhanure for the applicant. Mr. Nitin Mulye, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED:- JANUARY 05, 2010. P.C. Civil Application (L) No. 236/2010 tendered across the bar taken on record. Office is directed to number the Application. Heard forthwith by consent. The relief claimed in this Application is to recall the order dated 23rd March, 2009 and to further direct the Opponents 1 to 3 to pay sum of Rs. 50/- 2 lacs to the Petitioner. This Application, to say the least, is ill advised. It is an abuse of process of Court. The change of stand is obviously on account of change of Advocate. This practice deserves to be deprecated. 2. The order dated 23rd March, 2009 makes it more than evident that the Petitioner was fully apprised of the consequences of the arrangement she was entering into with the Respondents. She consciously entered into that arrangement at her own volition. It is certainly not a case of mis-representation or coercion, as is now sought to be contended. Infact, I personally explained the nitty gritties of the arrangement, the Petitioner was entering into. The Petitioner maintained her stand that she would abide by the arrangement indicated in the said order. It is obvious that the Petitioner taking advantage of her old age and sympathy shown by the Court is now trying to protract the proceedings, which cannot be countenanced. 3. The ground made out in the present Application is that, the Respondents, after entering into the above stated arrangement with the Petitioner, has now decided to sell the suit property to third party for a staggering amount of Rs. 75/- lacs. This fact, however, has been countered by the Counsel for the Respondents on instructions of the Respondents who are present in Court. The 3 Respondents are willing to file affidavit in this Court that there is no intention to dispose of the suit property as the Respondents themselves want to reside therein. That affidavit be filed in the course of the day. In other words, the ground made out in the present Application is a figment of imagination of Petitioner without any supporting material to substantiate that position. 4. The Application, as aforesaid, is clearly an abuse of process of the Court. The same is, therefore, rejected with costs quantified at Rs. 5000/- to be paid to the Respondents within one week from today. 5. In so far as Writ Petition is concerned, the dispute between the parties is substantially resolved in terms of the arrangement agreed upon and recorded in my order dated 23rd March, 2009. I had kept the matter pending only to ensure that the terms agreed by the parties are acted upon and taken to its logical end. It is noticed that the Petitioner after having given repeated undertaking before the Court to take away the movable items lying in the suit premises has failed to do so. Even on the earlier occasion, indulgence has been shown to the Petitioner and the Respondents, in deference to the observations made by the Court have waited for vacant and peaceful physical possession of the suit premises till now. This stalemate situation cannot be continued for long. The 4 Court Receiver is, therefore, directed to dispose of the movable items lying in the suit premises as per the offer already received in that behalf for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, in case the Petitioner fails to remove the said movable items lying in the suit premises by 5.00 p.m. tomorrow. It will be open to the Court Receiver to take assistance of local police, if required. The Petition is also disposed of with the above directions. 6. At this stage, Counsel for the Petitioner seeks more time for removing the movable items. I see no reason to accede to this request any further. Hence, the request is rejected. 7. Request for staying the operation of this order is also rejected in the peculiar facts of the present case and having regard to the observations already recorded in the order. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J