The goods could not be cleared immediately before the appeal was disposed of, which according to the petitioner, was because of the fault of the respondents and, according to the respondents, because of the fault of the petitioner. However the fact remains that before the goods could be cleared as directed in the judgment, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner filed Contempt Case No.1070 of 2010 alleging non compliance with the directions in that judgment. The respondents filed R.P.No.836 of 2010 for review of the judgment on the ground that before the goods could be cleared, the appeal had already been dismissed and therefore the relevance of the judgment has ceased and the same requires to be reviewed. It is under the above situation the petitioner has filed this writ petition submitting that petitioner has filed a further appeal before the 4th respondent Appellate Tribunal. Copy of the appeal is produced as Ext.P9. The petitioner seeks the same order as in the earlier judgment pending disposal of the said appeal. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of opinion that pending disposal of the second appeal also, the petitioner can be permitted to clear the goods. Accordingly the respondents shall permit the
