1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.535 OF 2008 Dashrath Keshav Waigankar .. Petitioner Verus Mahipati Ganpati Tele & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Madhav Jamdar for petitioner Mr.N.N.Gawankar i/b. Arfan Sait for respondent No.1 Mr.Chetan Damre S.K.Shinde for respondent No.6 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 21st April 2010. P.C.: 1] This civil revision application challenges an order dated 9th July 2008 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malvan in Regular Darkhast No.31 of 2006. 2] The objection of the petitioner – Judgement debtor No.1 to the enforceability and executability of the decree in favour of the respondent has been rejected. Aggrieved by that order, the judgement debtor No.1, 2 has filed this revision. 3] After the revision application was placed before me Mr.Jamdar learned Advocate appearing for petitioner sought time to take instructions and at his request the matter was placed today. Upon instructions from the petitioner, Mr.Jamdar makes a statement that the petitioner will not press the objection raised before the executing court and particularly, vide exh.31. He seeks leave to withdraw the application/ objection (exh.31) with liberty to challenge the decree in the pending petition instituted by him in that behalf. 4] Mr.Jamdar submits that the petition has already been filed in this Court challenging the decree passed under section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act for possession of the properties. Pending such challenge the petitioner is advised to withdraw the objection to the decree and that by itself should not be construed as giving up the objection to the jurisdiction of the trial court. Needless to clarify that mere withdrawal of the objection and the civil revision application would not constitute a bar 3 for the petitioner to raise the plea of jurisdiction of the trial court and all contentions of parties in that behalf are kept open. Subject to the same, the civil revision application is disposed of. 5] Since, the petitioner has withdrawn the application (Exh.31) it is not necessary to scrutinise the correctness of the order dated 9th July 2008 as the same would not survive. 6] Mr.Jamdar submits that in this revision by an order dated 18th November 2009 ad-interim stay of execution proceedings was granted. He prays that this stay be continued so as to enable petitioner to prosecute pending petition and press his challenge to the decree. He, therefore, prays that ad-interim stay be continued till 30th June 2010, which request is vehemently opposed by Mr.Gawankar appearing for decree holder. 7] Considering that petitioner has filed substantive petition under article 227 of the Constitution in this Court, interest of justice would be 4 sub-served if ad-interim order is continued till 15th June 2010. Accordingly, the ad-interim order shall continue till then and would not be continued further, unless the petitioner obtains appropriate reliefs in the pending petition. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)