FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.889 OF 2007 ------------------------------------:---------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders. coram, appearances, Court’s orders : or directions and Registrar’s : orders. : ------------------------------------:----------------------------------- Mr R.S.Yadav, for the petitioner. Mr R.A.Thorat, for the respondent. CORAM: D.B.Bhosale,J. DATED: 12.02.2008 P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition takes an exception to an order dated 18.10.2006 passed by the Court of Small Causes at Bombay making Misc. Notice No.254 of 2005, taken out by the respondent/defendant, absolute. The operative portion of the order reads thus:- "This Notice is made absolute. The delay caused for taking out this Notice has been condoned. Ex-parte decree passed on 7.2.2005 in RAE & R Suit No.213/581 of 2002 is hereby set aside. The plaintiff is ordered and directed to restore the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the defendant within one month from today. In view of the facts and circumstances of the notice, the defendant shall pay the cost of Rs.2500/- to the plaintiff. At this stage the learned advocate for the plaintiff want to go in appeal against this order and therefore operative of the order may be stayed for two months from today. Heard the learned advocate for the defendant. Considering the facts and circumstances, the operation of the order is stayed for the period of two months from today. However, the plaintiff is directed to submit his undertaking that during this period, he will not part with the possession of the suit premises. Undertaking must be submitted on or before 30.10.2006." This court, while issuing notice on 8.2.2007, had granted stay to the direction in the operative portion of the order by which the petitioner-plaintiff was directed to restore vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondents - defendants. That order was in operation only for a period of four weeks. This court is informed that the petitioner-plaintiff has not filed undertaking in pursuance of the impugned order and has also inducted third party in the suit premises. Mr.Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, confirms this. A litigant, who has no regard for orders of the court, does not deserve any indulgence by the court. The petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands. Moreover, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)