- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 243 OF 2009 Sunil Haribhau Jadhav & Ors. ... Applicants Vs. Machindra Rajaram Garade & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. A. V. Anturkar i/b Sugandh B. Deshmukh, for applicants. Mrs. Anita A. Agarwal, for respondent No.1. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : JULY 8, 2009. PC :- 1. Learned counsel for the applicant and the respondent No.1 state that applicant’s application at Exhibit 13 filed in Special Darkhast No. 225 of 2005 under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 99 of Civil Procedure Code, is not disposed of and the same is still pending. By the impugned order, the learned Judge disposed of applicant’s application at Exhibit 78, under which the applicants have claimed that the decree of specific performance obtained by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2 on 28th June 2005, is nullity. 2. Since the abovesaid application Exhibit 13 is pending before the Executing Court, both the learned counsel appearing for - 2 - the respective parties agree that the Executing Court be directed to dispose of the said application expeditiously, independently and on its own merit and without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order. 3. In the above facts, present revision is disposed of by passing following order. ORDER (i) The Executing Court, namely IInd Jt. Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Pune is directed to hear and dispose of the applicants’ application at Exhibit 13 in Special Darhast No. 225 of 2005, as expeditiously as possibly and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. (ii) The learned Judge shall decide the aforesaid application at Exhibit 13 independently, on its own merit and without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order. (iii) Needless to mention that all points and contentions raised by the respective parties are expressly kept open and the parties are at liberty to agitate the same. Sd/- [ R. V. MORE, J.]