1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7902 OF 2010 Ramniklal R.Shah. ..Petitioner. Vs S.K. Tatuskar. ..Respondent. Mr. B.S.Nayak,Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Kachare i/by Dahibavkar & Co.,Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 13th October, 2010. P.C. :- 1 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks stay to the execution of the decree as a Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner is likely to come before the Apex Court on 22nd October, 2010. 2 Against the original order passed in Civil Revision Application by this Court, the Petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. Special Leave Petition was dismissed . The Apex Court granted time to the petitioner to vacate the suit premises till the end of September, 2010 subject to filing an usual undertaking within 15 days from the said order. The said order was passed on 13th May, 2010. 3 The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that a review petition seeking review of the 2 order passed by this court in revision application was maintainable in law and now the Special Leave Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order rejecting the review application. He, therefore, submitted that till the Special Leave Petition challenging the order passed of rejecting the review petition is not heard, the possession of the petitioner may be protected. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance in the case of Kishor B. Rajput Vs. Preeti Kishor Rajput reported in 2007 (3) Bom. C.R. 279. He submitted that in view of the said decision, the Executing Court ought to have granted stay as the matter is pending before the Apex Court. 4 I have considered the submissions. This Court confirmed the decree of possession by dismissing the revision application preferred by the petitioner. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by approaching the Apex Court. On 13th May,2010, the Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition by passing the following order. “Special leave petition is dismissed. The petitioner tenant is granted time to 3 vacate till the end of September, 2010 subject to filing an usual undertaking within 15 days”. 5 It is an admitted position that the petitioner has not filed usual undertaking as directed by the Apex Court. The petitioner was entitled to retain the possession till the end of September, 2010 subject to filing an usual undertaking as directed by the Apex Court. Though the petitioner did not file undertaking, he has continued to be in possession. It was for the petitioner to approach the Apex Court for seeking extension of time. The petitioner has not approached the Apex Court. The petitioner has also not given undertaking. Therefore, this is not a case for interference in writ jurisdiction at the instance of the petitioner who has not complied with the order of the Apex Court by filing usual undertaking . Hence, writ petition is rejected. JUDGE