1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7467 OF 2009 Jubeda Mh. Yakub .. Petitioner versus Kartikeshwar Balchand Chaudhari & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.M.M.Sandhyanshiv for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Karwande for respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 9th March 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order passed by the executing Court on 11th August 2009 by which possession warrant was issued against the petitioner. A consent decree was passed by this Court in terms of consent terms dated 3rd March 2009 in Writ Petition No. 541 of 1992. Clause 3 of the consent terms reads thus: “3. The petitioner No.2 undertakes to this Hon’ble Court, that the petitioner No.2 shall hand over, vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent No.1 on or before 30th April 2009 for construction of a new building at S.No.417 Gurwar Ward, Malegaon.” The petitioner No.2 in the said petition is the petitioner in the present petition and the respondent No.1 in the said earlier petition is the respondent No.1 herein. 2. When this writ petition appeared before the Court on 22nd September 2 2009, following order was passed: “1 The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the order of this court in writ petition. He invited my attention to the clause 4 of the said order. He states that the respondent has not complied with the requirement of giving a copy of sanctioned plan earmarking the premises to be given to the petitioner. He submitted that the rent receipt is not transferred. He stated that if the respondent is ready and willing to comply with the consent order passed by this court, the petitioner is willing to forthwith vacate the suit premises. The statement is accepted.” 3. On 15th October 2009 after hearing the parties this Court passed following order: “1 When the attention of the learned counsel for the first respondent was invited to the order dated 22nd September 2009, on instructions he states that the first respondent is willing to supply a copy of the sanctioned plan to the petitioner after earmarking the premises to be alloted to the petitioner on the said plan. He states that the first respondent has no difficulty in transferring the rent receipt. He states that necessary steps will be taken within a period of two weeks from today. 2 If the first respondent complies with the aforesaid requirements, it is obvious that the petitioner will have to forthwith vacate the suit premises. The statement of the petitioner to that effect has been already recorded in order dated 22nd September 2009.” 4. On 4th March 2010 when the petition came up before this Court, following order was passed: “. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent has handed over to the learned counsel for the Petitioner a copy of the sanctioned plan on which the premises to be allotted to the Petitioner have been earmarked. He has also handed over the rent receipt to the counsel 3 for the Petitioner. In view of the compliance, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner will hand over possession of the suit premises tomorrow i.e. 5th March, 2010. The statement is accepted. 2. To be placed high upon board on 9th March, 2010 for passing orders.” 5. Today when the matter is called out, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the petitioner wants to engage another advocate and therefore he may be given discharge. 6. Undertaking of the petitioner to vacate is already recorded in the order passed in the earlier writ petition. Further statement of the petitioner is recorded in order dated 22nd September 2009 to the effect that after compliance is made by the 1st respondent, the petitioner was ready and willing to forthwith vacate the premises. Same was the assurance of the petitioner recorded in order dated 4th March 2010. In fact the petitioner had agreed to hand over the possession till 5th March 2010. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be granted time of two weeks to vacate. It is not possible to accede to the said request. The petitioner has not abided by the undertakings and assurances given to this Court and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. Writ petition is accordingly rejected. (A.S.OKA,J)