1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CAW NOS. 265/2010 & 619/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3935 OF 2009 (Smt. Nalini wd/o Bhayyaji Kudegave vs. Dinesh Motiramji Bele & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. FEBRUARY 25, 2010. Heard Shri Ninawe, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Bhamburkar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Kulkarni with Shri Pathak, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5. From the orders of this Court dated 12.01.2009 read with orders dated 12.08.2009, it is apparent that Respondent No. 2 has been permitted to deposit the amount for and on behalf of the petitioner. By order dated 12.08.2009, the amount as mentioned therein was allowed to be deposited and balance amount was ordered to be deposited within a period of three weeks. That order has been complied with. Thereafter, complaining that the amount towards the period from August 2009 till 14.12.2009 has not been deposited, Respondent No.1 has filed Civil Application No. 265 of 2010 pointing out non compliance with the order dated 12.01.2009 and, therefore, praying for dismissal of writ petition. Respondents No. 2 to 5 have filed their reply 2 to that application and independently have filed Civil Application No. 619 of 2010 wherein they are seeking leave to deposit balance amount of Rs.18,000/-. It is not in dispute that agreed occupation charges are Rs.3,000/- per month. Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel has pointed out that as the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount, Respondent No. 2 could not take appropriate steps and deposited the amount. Shri Bhamburkar, learned counsel, on the other hand states that this is going on deliberately only to harass Respondent No.1 and he insists for payment of costs. After hearing parties, it is apparent that appropriate orders permitting Respondent No.2 to comply with the orders dated 12.01.2009 on behalf of the petitioner could have been obtained on 12.08.2009. That has not been done and neither Respondent No. 2 nor the petitioner thereafter approached this Court for any modification or any leave to deposit till the petitioner moved Civil Application No. 265 of 2010. In the circumstances, Respondent No. 2 is permitted to deposit the amount as prayed for in Civil Application No. 619 of 2010 within a period of three working days from today. However, the same is subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No.1 and further cost of Rs.1,000/- to High Court, Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur, in the 3 matter. It is clarified that hereafter the direction to deposit as incorporated in the order dated 12.01.2009 shall be the direction to Respondent No.2 and obligation is upon Respondent No. 2 to comply with it regularly. The said compliance will be for and on behalf of the petitioner and shall not prejudice the rights and contentions of Respondent No.1 in the matter. In these circumstances, Civil Application No. 619 of 2010 is rendered infructuous and disposed of accordingly. It is pointed out to this Court that the petitioner is a senior citizen and matter is already expedited. If the matter is expedited, the office to list the matter for final hearing. JUDGE *GS.