W.P. No.16692.10
Writ Petition No. 16692 of 2010
24/11/2010
Shri R. N. Roy, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
This petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is directed against an order
dated 15-11-2010 passed by First Civil Judge Class-I,
Burhanpur, in Execution Case No. C.S.14-A/2001,
whereby the request by the petitioner/judgment debtor
for grant of time for vacating the suit premises up to
30 t h of June, 2011 has been declined and he
petitioner/judgment debtor has been granted the time
till 05-01-2011 to vacate the suit premises.
The suit was instituted by the
respondent/Corporation against the
petitioner/judgment debtor for eviction from the suit
premises. The suit was decreed in favour of the
respondent/Corporation on 24-11-2004. An appeal
preferred there against vide Civil Appeal No. 4-A/2004
before the Additional District Judge, Burhanpur,
district-Khandwa, was dismissed on 18-03-2005.
Second appeal preferred by the petitioner herein
against the appellate order forming subject matter of
Second Appeal No. 766/05 was also dismissed on
30-09-2010. Consequent whereupon, the respondent
W.P. No.16692.10
has brought the execution proceeding wherein the
petitioner/judgment debtor sought leave of the
executing Court to vacate the premises till 30 t h June,
2011. The executing Court vide impugned order dated
15-11-2010 while recording a finding that the decree
holder has orally objected for extension of time and
has also left to the discretion of the Court, granted the
petitioner the time till 05-01-2011 to vacate the
premises in question. It is this order which is being
challenged in the present petition.
The contention put forth by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that being a Bank it is likely to
take about six months to have a suitable alternative
accommodation to shift the entire Bank from the
premises in question. It is contended that only two
months’ time have been granted to the Bank which will
cause great inconvenience to the Bank.
After hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioner and perusing the order in question we
observe that there is no illegality nor any jurisdictional
error on the part of the executing Court in dwelling
upon the application filed by the petitioner and
granting the time till 05-01-2011 to vacate the suit
premises. Therefore, no interference is warranted in
the matter. However, the petitioner would be at liberty
W.P. No.16692.10
to move the executing Court in case they are not able
to get the suitable alternative accommodation till 5 t h of
January, 2011 to seek further extension. The
executing Court on such application being filed would
be at liberty to dwell upon the same on its own merit
without being impressed upon by the observation
made by us.
W ith these observations the petition stands
dismissed. However, no costs.
(AJIT SINGH) (SANJAY YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
SC