1 cra272.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.272 OF 2010 Laxman Maruti More & Anr. ...Applicants vs. Navnitlal M. Shah (deleted) Pribhdas B. Jhangiani ...Respondents Ms Pushpa Goswami for the applicants Mr.C.P.Deogirikar for the respondent no.2 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 29, 2010 P.C.: 1 The learned counsel for the applicants on instructions states that the applicants are not pressing the revision application on merits. However, she submits that longer time to vacate the suit premises be granted. The said prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 by contending that the revision application arises out of obstructionists proceedings. 2 The revision applicants are not pressing the revision application on merits and hence the impugned Judgments and decree will become final. Moreover, they have shown willingness to give usual undertaking to vacate the suit premises. Considering the aforesaid aspects and considering the fact that the suit premises are residential premises, time of one year to vacate deserves to be granted. 2 cra272.sxw 3 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Revision application is dismissed as withdrawn. ii)Notwithstanding the dismissal of the revision application, the applicants shall not be evicted till 29th October 2011 subject to applicants and all adult members of their families filing usual undertakings in this Court to vacate the suit premises. iii)If undertakings are not filed within a period of four weeks from today, the decree for possession will forthwith become executable. iv)Advance copy of the undertakings shall be furnished to the Advocate for the second respondent. v) There will be no order as to costs. JUDGE