1 ndm 914 cra.754.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 754 OF 2009 Tukaram Vithoba More. ... Applicant Vs. Pralhad Shamrao Ambekar and ors. ... Respondents -------- Mr. V.G.Peshave for the Applicant. Mr. Vipul K. Bodhare i/b Mr. A.M.Joshi and Geeta M. Saradesai for Respondent No.1. -------- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 01 st December, 2010. P.C. 1 The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant were heard long back. However, order was not passed as the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant sought time to take instructions as regards the grant of time to vacate. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant on instructions of the Applicant states that the Applicant is not pressing the civil revision application on merits. However, he prays that longer time to vacate of one year be granted. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant states that the Applicant will file usual undertaking. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents opposed the prayer for grant of time. 2 3 The Applicant has made a statement that he is not pressing the revision application on merits. Therefore, decree for possession will attain finality. The Applicant has shown willingness to give usual undertaking to vacate. 4 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, time to vacate deserves to be granted till 1 st December, 2011. 5 Hence I pass the following order: i. Revision application is dismissed as not pressed; ii. Notwithstanding dismissal of the revision application, decree for possession shall not be executed till 1 st December, 2011 subject to Applicant filing an usual undertaking in this Court within a period of five weeks from today; iii. If undertaking is not filed within the stipulated time, decree for possession will forthwith become executable. [ A.S.OKA, J ]