Nitin Rai Sharma v. Ashok Kapoor

1. Respondent/Mr. Ashok Kapoor is having a decree in his favour and is seeking eviction of his tenant from the tenanted premises.

2. Pursuant to such decree, an Execution Petition being EX. No. 33/2024 was filed.

3. When the abovesaid execution petition was pending, the judgment debtor moved an application before learned Trial Court, seeking extension of time to vacate the premises, citing personal exigency.

4. Learned Executing Court, after hearing both the sides, allowed such request in part and granted limited extension of 15 days i.e. upto 30.05.2025 to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to decree holder.

5. Feeling aggrieved, judgment debtor has filed the present petition under CM(M) 1080/2025 2 Article 227 of Constitution of India. When this petition was taken up by this Court on 30.05.2025, just before the start of summer vacation, the following order was passed:

6. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by learned Vacation Bench on 04.06.2025 and after hearing both the sides, the following order was passed:

CM(M) 1080/2025 3 CM(M) 1080/2025

6. List on 05.08.2025 before Roster Bench for compliance.”

7. Thus, it is very clear that the orders have been passed on the specific undertakings of the petitioner who in no uncertain terms, agreed to vacate the premises on or before 01.08.2025 and it was made clear that he would not be entitled to seek further extension in the matter.

8. The matter has been taken up today as one application has been filed by the petitioner and by virtue of such application being CM APPL. 46218/2025, petitioner seeks extension of time for another period of five months i.e. upto 31.12.2025. He submits that he has, though, got an alternative accommodation but to make it fully habitable, he would be requiring some further time. He also submits that he has two school-going children and, therefore, it would be difficult for him to find any other tenanted place for such a short period of 3-4 months.

9. Learned counsel for respondent/decree holder appears on advance notice and strongly opposes the abovesaid request.

10. This Court has already extracted the abovesaid orders and it is quite clear that the intention of the petitioner does not look to be an honest one as he is retracting from the statement which he had made before this Court, not once but twice.

11. In view of above, this Court does not find any reason to give any further indulgence of any kind, particularly, when even the decree holder is not agreeable to any further extension.