1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. Second Appeal No.334 of 2007 (Umeshchandra Manoharlal Agrawal Vs. Smt. Pushpabai Laxmikant Tekade & 4 ors.) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's Orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.L. Khapre, Adv. for the appellant. Mr. V.P. Panpalia,Adv. For R- 1 to 5. CORAM : Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J. DATE : 10 th August, 2007 Shri Khapre, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the instant second appeal is not maintainable. He, therefore, seeks permission to withdraw this second appeal with liberty to file appropriate proceedings. Permission and liberty as sought for is granted. Second appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. Shri Panpalia who appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 5, submits that he had filed a caveat in the matter on a belief that the appellant would file a writ petition against the impugned judgment. Shri Khapre submits that a copy of the writ petition which would be filed by the appellant, would be supplied to Shri Panpalia well in advance. 2 Shri Panpalia, the learned counsel for the respondents, makes a statement on behalf of his clients that the decree for eviction would not be executed for a period of one week from today. JUDGE RMP