wp1999-11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1999 OF 2011 Balkrishna M. Dharkar .. Petitioner versus Laxman H. Tolani .. Respondent Mr.Vivek Salunke for the petitioner. Mr.S.M.Sabrad for the respondent. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. 5th MAY 2011. P.C.: . By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th November 2010 passed below Exhibits 22 and 26 in R.D.No.55 of 2009 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for issuance of possession warrant came to be rejected. Mr.Salunke appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though vide order of this Court in Civil Revision Application No.26 of 2009, the time was given to the petitioner to vacate the premises on the condition that they file an undertaking as directed by this Court, an undertaking as directed by this Court has not been filed. He submits that vide the order passed by this wp1999-11.doc 2 Court, the petitioner was required to file an undertaking that no other member except the family members are residing with the applicants therein and further that though all the family members were required to file an undertaking, the undertaking of daughter- in-law is not filed. 2 An affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the undertaking of daughter-in-law was not filed since she had vacated the suit premises prior to the date on which the order was passed by this Court. Mr.Sabrad on the instructions by the sole respondent who is personally present in the Court makes a categorical statement that no obstruction of any nature would be caused at the instance of the daughter-in- law. 3 The undertaking cannot be read in piece-meal. If the undertaking is read in entirety, it will reveal that interest of the petitioner is clearly protected in-as-much as undertaking states that no third party rights should be created and that they will not allow any third party or person to enter in the suit premises or to wp1999-11.doc 3 create any third party interest in the suit premises. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Writ petition is rejected. (B.R.GAVAI, J)