JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners at substantial length and perused the impugned order.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned court below was in jurisdictional error in dismissing the appeal by giving three grounds namely, the appeal having abated, the appeal being barred by time and third being that the appeal being without any merit. According to the learned counsel, the approach shows that the learned lower appellate court was not firm on any of the points and in a confused way, the appeal has been dismissed. 2. I have perused the impugned order. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The impugned order does not call for any interference. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed summarily. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners then contends that since the suit, out of which, this revision arises was a suit for eviction, wherein the petitioners even could not file written statement and the suit has been decreed for eviction from the shop. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays for some reasonable time to be given to the petitioners to vacate the suit shop. 4. Looking in to the facts and circumstances of the case and after taking into account humanitarian consideration I think it just and proper in the interest of justice to grant time upto 3rd July, 2001 from today to the petitioners to remain in possession over the disputed premises provided they deposit the entire decretal amount before the learned trial court within one month from today and continue to pay monthly mesne profits month by month at the monthly rate of rent. The petitioners are further directed to execute an undertaking before the learned trial court within the aforesaid period that after remaining in possession over the disputed premises upto 3rd July, 2001 they will hand over vacant possession of the disputed premises to the decree holder landlord. 5. It is made clear that if the tenant-defendants-petitioners fail to comply with any of the conditions enumerated hereinabove, the landlord-plaintiff - respondent shall be at liberty to execute the decree as envisaged under sub-section (9) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. 6. With the aforesaid observations, this revision petition is hereby dismissed summarily.Revision dismissed. *******