1 rpf.15.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.15 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3759 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.247 OF 2010 Shri Vishal Suresh Agarwal ...Petitioner Versus Shri Rajkumar M.Khattar & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Kishor Patil i/b Mr.P.N.Joshi for Review Petitioner. Mr.J.S.Kini i/b Mr.Suresh Dubey for Respondents 1-a to 1-c. Mr.N.R.Bubna for Respondent No.3. Mr.V.C.Ghosalkar for Respondent No.4. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED:- DECEMBER 15, 2010. P.C. 1. By this Review Petition, in the first place, it is prayed that the order dated 11th August, 2010 be modified by directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to clear all the liabilities pertaining to property tax, cess tax and electricity charges. The Counsel appearing for original Defendants 2 and 3 (Respondents 1-a to 1-c and Respondent No.3 herein) have in no uncertain 2 rpf.15.10.sxw terms assured the Court on the basis of instructions of their respective clients that liability in respect of the disputed property concerning property tax, cess tax and electricity charges until the date of handing over physical possession to the Review Petitioner herein, will be borne by them. They submit that so far as outstanding electricity charges are concerned, the same will be paid forthwith by them. Insofar as outstanding liability regarding property tax, cess tax is concerned, it is stated that dispute has been raised by the said Respondents before the appropriate Forum and they would abide by the decision to be rendered in the said proceedings. In other words, as and when the said proceedings are decided one way or the other, they would pay the amount as may be determined in the said proceedings. That means the Review Petitioner is not liable to pay any amount towards property tax, cess tax or electricity charges pertaining to the disputed property until the date he takes over possession thereof. 2. Besides giving the above assurance, Counsel appearing for Respondents 1-a to 1-c and Respondent No.3 have submitted that their respective clients would submit such Indemnity and Declaration before the concerned Authority, if so required. 3 rpf.15.10.sxw 3. In view of the above assurance which has been accepted by us, the main grievance of the Review Petitioner stands addressed. 4. The next relief claimed in this Review Petition is to clarify that the liability of Respondent No.4 Bank still exists and the said question be decided finally in the First Appeal. Insofar as this relief is concerned, it cannot be entertained, considering the fact that the arrangement stated in Clauses (iv) and (v) of the order dated August 11, 2010 was on the basis of the agreement between the parties. As per the said agreement or Consent Terms, it was agreed that, with the arrangement accepted by Defendants 1 to 3 and Plaintiff, the Respondent No.4/Defendant No.4 Bank would stand absolved of any responsibility to pay either compensation or interest in terms of clauses 6 and 7 of the impugned decree, as the said Defendants have already offered the amount to the Plaintiff before filing the Suit. Further, even thereafter from time to time, they have offered the said amount but the same was not availed by the Plaintiff. It has been clearly recorded that this arrangement was acceptable to the Plaintiff. In Clause (v), therefore, the question which is kept open regarding the liability, is only qua Defendants 1 to 3 and not Defendant No.4 Bank. In other words, relief in terms of prayer clause (c) cannot be entertained by way of this 4 rpf.15.10.sxw Review Petition. 5. Insofar as relief in terms of prayer clause (d) is concerned, even the said question has been kept open in terms of Clause (iii) of the order dated August 11, 2010, which was accepted by all concerned as recorded in the order itself. Therefore, even this relief cannot be entertained, as the Review Petitioner will have to abide by the arrangement in order dated August 11, 2010. 6. Insofar as relief in terms of prayer clause (e) is concerned, Counsel for Respondents 1-a to 1-c and Respondent No.3 on instructions states that the said Respondents have no difficulty in giving no objection as and when required to the concerned Authorities and to the Review Petitioner for seeking necessary permission/license from the Authorities. Besides, as aforesaid, the Respondents, 1-a to 1-c and 3, in particular, have assured this Court to file Indemnity Bond, if required before the appropriate Forum with regard to their liability of property tax, cess tax and electricity charges before the date of handing over possession of the property in dispute to the Review Petitioner. 5 rpf.15.10.sxw 7. The keys of the premises have been made over by the Counsel for Respondents to the Counsel for the Review Petitioner in Court in token of handing over possession of the disputed property. As observed earlier, the possession thereof is taken by the Review Petitioner without prejudice to what has been observed hitherto. 8. Review Petition disposed of accordingly. A.P.BHANGALE, J. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.