1 RPWL 59 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.59 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1832 OF 2010 ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1832 OF 2010 Hemlata Chandrakant Mirani ..... Petitioner V/s. Union of India and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.J.S.Kini a/w Mr.Suresh Dubey, for the petitioner. Mr.M.M.Gohar, for respondent No.5. Mr.P.C.Tiwari, General Manager, Central Bank of India (MMZO), present. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. This matter was specifically directed to be kept today in order to find out as to whether the settlement is possible between the parties. Today, Mr.P.C.Tiwari, General Manager (MMZO) is present in the Court. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank as well as Mr.Tiwari, fairly concede that it is better if the dispute is settled between the parties as per the existing Bank policy. The statements of the learned Advocate for the Bank as well as Mr.Tiwari, are recorded. 2. By our order dated 07-09-2010, the respondent Bank was permitted to take paper possession and it was ordered that the physical 2 RPWL 59 of 2010 possession may not be disturbed for a period of one week from the date of the order. Subsequently, petitioner asked for extension of time on the ground that she has received the copy of the order late and the symbolic possession was taken on the last day. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that because of intervening holidays, he could not go to Debt Recovery Tribunal immediately. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the symbolic possession is taken by pasting the notice outside the stilt area of the premises. 3. Be that as it may, as a last chance, we give extension of 10 days, during which period respondent Bank may not take physical possession. In the meanwhile, the petitioner to approach either DRT or any other forum as deemed fit, for redressing the grievance raised in the writ petition. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on any points, except protecting the petitioner for a period of 10 days by extending time. 4. In view of what is stated above, the praecipe filed in the writ petition and the review petition is disposed of. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )