1 2 cra.536.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 536 OF 2010 Bank of Baroda. ... Applicant Versus Prem Kishinchand Java and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. V.Y.Sanglikar for the Applicant. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar i/b M/s. Lokhandwala and Company for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 20 th December, 2011. P.C. 1 The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant on instructions of the Applicant states that the Applicant – Bank is not pressing the revision application on merits. He, however, pointed out that in the suit premises, the record of several Branches of the Applicant in the city of Mumbai has been stored and it will require longer time to make arrangements for acquiring another suitable accommodation. He, therefore, prays that time of three years to vacate the suit premises be granted. 2 2 cra.536.10 2 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents on instructions of Respondent No.2 states that the Respondents have no objection if time to vacate for a period of three years as prayed is granted. He pointed out that the Municipal Corporation has claimed a large amount by way of Municipal Taxes in respect of the suit premises and therefore, the Applicant be directed to deposit a substantial amount. He states that the inquiry for determination of mesne profits has been concluded and the trial Court has passed an order determining the mesne profits. He states that the appeals preferred against the said order by both the parties are pending. He states that the appeals and the applications made therein did not proceed because of the pendency of this revision application. 3 Considering the facts of the case, time to vacate of three years deserves to be granted subject to the Applicant giving usual undertaking. As the Applicant is not pressing the present revision application on merits, the decree for possession will become final. As 3 2 cra.536.10 far as the prayer for deposit is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents states that even an appeal preferred by the Applicant against the order of determining the mesne profits is pending in the Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes and a separate appeal preferred by the Respondents for enhancement is pending. In view of the disposal of the revision application, the said appeals will have to proceed and therefore, the Respondents can always seek appropriate directions in the pending appeals. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant states that he is not aware about the pendency of any appeal preferred by the Respondent. 4 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The revision application is dismissed as not pressed ; ii. The decree for possession shall not be executed till 20 th December, 2014 subject to condition of the Authorized Officer of the Applicant filing usual undertaking in this Court within a period of six weeks from today; 4 2 cra.536.10 iii. If the undertaking is not filed within the stipulated time, the decree for possession shall become forthwith executable ; iv. The Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes shall proceed with the final hearing of the appeals arising out of the order determining the mesne profits ; v. It will be open for the Respondents to seek appropriate directions in the pending appeals as regards the deposit of an amount by the Applicant. If any such application is made by the Respondents, the Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes shall decide the same on its own merits ; vi. Hearing of the pending appeals is expedited ; vii. The Appeal Bench of the Court of Small Causes shall make an endeavour to conclude the hearing of the pending appeals before the end of April 2012 ; 5 2 cra.536.10 viii. Pending civil applications do not survive and the same are disposed of; and ix. Certified copy be expedited. [ A.S.OKA, J ]