mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.281 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7071 OF 2003 Smt.Rajniben Jamnadas Applicant versus Lalitkumar Dwarkadas Champsey Respondent Mr.Jayen Trivedi for applicant. Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar with Ms.P.L.Bachani i/by M/s.I.R.Joshi & Co. for respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22nd February 2010 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The respondent is the petitioner in the writ petition. The applicant herein is the respondent in the writ petition. After the petition was dismissed for non prosecution and stay was vacated, the applicant executed the decree which is subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. The possession was obtained through Court Bailiff in execution proceedings. During the course of execution of the decree, an inventory was made on 7th August 2006 which shows that there are certain articles, furniture and fixtures of the respondent in the civil application (petitioner in the writ petition) lying in the suit premises. My attention is invited to order dated 14th July 2009 passed by this Court. The grievance made in the application is that notwithstanding the said order, the respondent has not removed the articles. 3. It is obvious that after execution of the decree, the respondent cannot keep her articles, furniture and fixtures in the suit premises and, therefore, the respondent will have to remove the said articles. A reasonable time deserves to be granted to the respondent to remove the articles. If articles are not removed within the stipulated time, it will be open for the applicant to file a fresh application seeking relief in terms of prayer clause (b) of the application. 4. Hence, I pass following order :- A) The civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); B) Time of four weeks is granted to the respondent to comply with the order; C) If the respondent fails to comply with the order within the stipulated time, it will be open for the applicant to take out a fresh civil application praying for relief in terms of prayer clause (b) of this civil application; D) The civil application is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.527 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7071 OF 2003 Lalitbhai Dwarkadas Champsy Applicant versus Smt.Rajniben Jamnadas Champsy Respondent Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar with Ms.P.L.Bachani i/by M/s.I.R.Joshi & Co. for applicant. Mr.Jayen Trivedi for respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22nd February 2010 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent. On instructions of the respondent, the learned counsel for the respondent states that she does not intend to create any third party interests in respect of suit premises and she does not intend to part with possession in respect of suit premises as the decree passed in her favour is on the ground of bona fide requirement. Learned counsel for the respondent seeks a direction that the writ petition be immediately taken up for final hearing. 2. The petition cannot be heard peremptorily as there is no urgency. The respondent is already placed in possession of the suit premises. 3. The statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent on instructions is accepted. In view of the statement, there is no need to grant any relief in this application. Therefore, the civil application is disposed of. (A.S.OKA, J.)