1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5436 of 2008 Sunil Lazarus Anthony .. Petitioner versus Ayodhyabai Jyotiram Suryawanshi .. Respondent ... Mr.Sandip S. Tingiwale for the petitioner. Mr.Chirag Shah i/b N.N. Shingnapurkar for the respondent. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 12th August 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr.Shah waives notice for the respondent. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent. 2 3. This writ petition under Article 227 takes exception to the judgement and order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division dated 1st July 2008 in Rent/Revision/PNA/441 of 2007. By the said order, the revisional authority while accepting the request of the petitioner to adjourn the revision application however rejected the prayer for continuation of stay which was granted on 5th January 2008. 4. I find force in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the revisional authority ought to have recorded some reason for refusing that request. However, no reason has been recorded by the revisional authority. Indeed, the revisional authority would have been justified in declining the request for adjournment if it was convinced that the applicant before it was unnecessarily prolonging the matter for one reason or the other. But that reason ought to have been recorded in the order as passed. 5. Be that as it may, as the revision application is now stated to be heard by the revisional authority on 8th September 2008, the stay 3 order which was granted in favour of the petitioner on 5th January 2008, in the said revision application, shall continue to operate till the pendency of the revision application. The revisional authority may finally dispose of the revision application on the same day or list it for hearing on some other convenient date while ensuring that the revision application is finally disposed of not later than 30th September 2008. The petitioner through his counsel undertakes before this court that he shall not seek any adjournment on any ground on future dates of hearing before the revisional authority including on 8th September 2008. That undertaking is accepted. It is made clear that if any request for adjournment is made by the advocate for the applicant or by the revision applicant himself (petitioner herein) the revisional authority may proceed to dismiss the revision application for non prosecution on the same day having regard to the undertaking given before this court by the petitioner as recorded in the earlier part of this order and which has been accepted. 6. Petition is disposed off in the above terms. 4 (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)