: 1 : Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.906 OF 2006 SECOND APPEAL NO.906 OF 2006 SECOND APPEAL NO.906 OF 2006 IN IN IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.14 OF 2003 CIVIL APPEAL NO.14 OF 2003 CIVIL APPEAL NO.14 OF 2003 IN IN IN REG. CIVIL SUIT NO.1064 OF 2000 REG. CIVIL SUIT NO.1064 OF 2000 REG. CIVIL SUIT NO.1064 OF 2000 WITH WITH WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.911 OF 2006 SECOND APPEAL NO.911 OF 2006 SECOND APPEAL NO.911 OF 2006 IN IN IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.13 OF 2003 CIVIL APPEAL NO.13 OF 2003 CIVIL APPEAL NO.13 OF 2003 IN IN IN REG. CIVIL SUIT NO.388 OF 1999 REG. CIVIL SUIT NO.388 OF 1999 REG. CIVIL SUIT NO.388 OF 1999 Sindhubai Genu Yadav ...Appellant V/s. Anand Govind Karande, Deceased, . Thru’ Bakulabai Anand Karande & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.G.N. Pandit, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mr.S.V. Palsuledesai, Advocate, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Indrajeet Kulkarni, Advocate, for Respondent No.7 in S.A. 911 of 2006. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 18TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 18TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 18TH JANUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Advocates appearing for the parties. The learned Advocate for the appellant on instructions states that the appellant is not pressing the Appeal on merits. However, considering the fact that the appellant has been in possession of the suit premises for a very long time, he seeks time of one year to : 2 : vacate the suit premises. The said request is opposed by the Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Considering the fact that the appellant is not pressing the Appeal on merits, the litigation will attain finality. Therefore, time of one year deserves to be granted subject to filing of usual undertaking to vacate by the appellant and all her adult family members. Hence, I pass the following order:- "O R D E R" "O R D E R" "O R D E R" (a). Second Appeal Nos.906 of 2006 and 911 of 2006 are dismissed as not pressed. (b). No order as to costs. (c). Civil Application Nos.1367 of 2006 in Second Appeal No.906 of 2006 does not survive in view of dismissal of the Appeal. Hence the same is also disposed of accordingly. (d). Notwithstanding the dismissal of the Appeal, the decree for possession shall not be executed against the appellant till 31st January, 2009 subject to appellant and all her adult family members filing : 3 : an usual undertaking in this Court within a period of six weeks from today. . If undertaking is not filed within the stipulated period of six weeks, the decree for possession will immediately become executable. 3. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]