ANJANI KUMAR, J. This is an application on behalf of petitioner-applicant in writ petition No. 23681 of 2004, which has been decided by the Court on 12th July, 2004. 2. To appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of learned Counsel for the petitioner-applicant in support of the present application, the following brief facts are necessary: 3. This writ petition was decided by the Court on 12th January, 2004. The operative portion of the judgment dated 12th July, 2004 is as under: "accordingly writ petition is dismissed. However, tenant petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that within one month from today he files an undertaking before the prescribed authority to the effect that on or before expiry of the aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord respondent. It is further directed that in case petitioner applied for allotment of shop No. 4 of building No. 87/1-A presently stated to be in tenancy occupation of Salim within fifteen days from today before RC and EO then RC and EO must decide the matter within three months from the date of filing of allotment application. RC and EO must after issuing notice to all the parties concerned including landlord and Salim, the sitting tenant of the said shop, first decide the date of construction of the shop or not. If RC and EO holds the Act to be applicable then he must decide whether it is deemed to be vacant having been let out without allotment order or not. If RC and EO holds the property to be deemed vacant then it must be allotted to the petitioner alone. Neither release application nor allotment application of any other person regarding that shop must be entertained. Dt/12-7-2004 Sd/- S. U. Khan, J. " 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-applicant states that pursuant to the direction issued by the Court, the petitioner applies for allotment of shop No. 4 of building No. 87/1-A, presently stated to be in tenancy occupation of Salim within fifteen days from the date of judgment of this Court before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, but the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, according to the averments made in this application, has not decided the same as yet. However, the petitioner-applicant has not come up with the case that he has vacated the premises as directed by the Court within the period of six months and more than six months have passed since the passing of the judgment of the Court dated 12th July, 2004. It appears that the petitioner-applicant has filed application No. 214057 of 2004 with the following prayer: "it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and the time already granted to the applicant-petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute may be extended by one year so that the dispute regarding the allotment of the shop No. 4 of Building No. 87/1-A, Lisari Road, Meerut City may be properly and completely decided by the District Supply Officer/delegated Authority, Meerut. " 5. On 29th November, 2004, the Court passed the following order: "list in the next week with previous paper. " 6. On 6th January, 2005, the Court again passed the following order: "it is most unfortunate that both the learned Counsel are arguing simultaneously making it impossible to understand anything. List this application before an other Bench. One month further time to vacate in pursuance of my order dated 12-7-2004 is granted. " Dt/-6-1-2005 Sd/- S. U. Khan, J. " 7. However, it would be clear from the order dated 6th January, 2005 that the Court granted one month further time to vacate the shop in question pursuant to the order dated 12th July, 2004. It appears that the petitioner-applicant has not vacated the said shop in question as directed by the Court vide its judgment and order dated 12th July, 2004. The petitioner- applicant therefore, filed the present application No. 24329 of 2005, with the following prayer: "it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and pass suitable orders that the aforesaid stay extension application may be put up before the proper Bench dealing its Rent Control matters today itself so that the time granted may be further extended to enable the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/a. D. M. City. Meerut to make compliance of the order of Honble Mr. Justice S. U. Khan dated 12th July, 2004 passed in the aforesaid writ petition (Annexure No. 1 to the affidavit ). " 8. Meerut to make compliance of the order of Honble Mr. Justice S. U. Khan dated 12th July, 2004 passed in the aforesaid writ petition (Annexure No. 1 to the affidavit ). " 8. When the aforesaid application came up before me, I passed the following order on 7th February, 2005: "this is an application by the petitioner whose writ petition has already been dismissed by this Court, by Honble S. U. Khan, J. by judgment dated 12th July, 2004. However, this Court while dismissing the writ petition, granted the petitioner six months time to vacate the accommodation in question provided within one month from the date of judgment the petitioner files an undertaking before the prescribed authority to the effect that on or before expiry of the period granted by this Court the petitioner will willingly hand over the possession of the property to the landlord-respondent. This application appears to have been filed before Honble S. U. Khan, J. who by his order dated 6th January, 2005 granted one month further time to vacate the accommodation in pursuance of order dated 12th July, 2004 and further directed the application to be listed before another Bench. The application which has been directed by Honble S. U. Khan, J. to be listed before another Bench has not come before me. List/put up this application alongwith the record, if possible, day after tomorrow. Dt: 7-2-2005 Sd/- A. Kumar, J. 9. When the matter was again placed before Honble S. U. Khan, J. , Honble S. U. Khan, J. has been pleased to pass the following order on 9th February, 2005: "the case appears to have been wrongly placed before me as by order dated 6th January, 2005, I directed the case to be listed before another Honble Judge. Accordingly put up before appropriate Court tomorrow i. e. 10-2-2005, if possible. " Dt: 9-2-2005 Sd/- S. U. Khan, J. " 10. Thus, this matter has again come up before me. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-applicant Sri A. D. Prabhakar argued that since the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not decided the application for allotment filed by the petitioner pursurance to the direction issued by the Court dated 12th July, 2004 and extended by the order dated 6-1-2005. The petitioner-applicant had not vacated the shop in dispute as directed by the Court. The petitioner-applicant had not vacated the shop in dispute as directed by the Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be put to loss because of the inaction on the part of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, who inspite of the direction issued by the Court has not decided the application for allotment filed by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench reported in (1993) 1 UPLBEC 218, Jitendra Pal v. Committee of Management, Kanya Kalyan Gurukul Shiksha Sansthan, Ucchttar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Bhaiswal Dist. Muzaffarnagar & Ors. , particularly, paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has ruled as under: " (6) In the counter-affidavit a preliminary objection has been taken in Paragraph 3 that the application is not maintainable as the special appeal has already been finally decided on 17-12- 1992. We do not accept this objection as in our opinion even after delivering its judgment this Court has got adequate power to issue directions to see to it that its judgment is complied with. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are very wide, and the High Court cannot only issue writs, but it can also issue orders or directions vide Dwarka Nath v. ITO, AIR 1966 SC 81 . In this case the Supreme Court also held that the High Court can mould the relief to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements. (7) In M. V. Elizabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. , 1992 (2) JT 65 Para 68, the Supreme Court observed: "the High Courts in India are superior Courts of record. They have original and appellate jurisdiction. They have inherent and plenary powers. Unless expressly or impliedly barred, and subject to the appellate or discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, the High Courts have unlimited jurisdiction, including the jurisdiction to determine their own powers. (See Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. , 1966 (3) SCR 744 ). As stated in Halsburys Laws of England, 4th Edition Vol. 10 Para 713. (See Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. , 1966 (3) SCR 744 ). As stated in Halsburys Laws of England, 4th Edition Vol. 10 Para 713. "prima facie, no matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a superior Court unless it is expressly shown to be so, while nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior Court unless it is expressly shown on the face of the proceedings that the particular matter is within the cognizance of the particular Court. " (8) It is, evident from the above observation that the High Court has all power to do justice unless there is some express curtailment of the power in the Constitution. (9) In S. Barrow v. State of U. P. , AIR 1958 All 154 (para 18), a Division Bench of this Court held that the High Court can even issue a writ suo motu. This decision also shows that this Court has very wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. (10) We, therefore, hold that the present application is maintainable and this Court, in appropriate cases, can issue orders or directions even after it has delivered its judgment. We, therefore, over rule the preliminary objection of Shri Ashok Bhushan. " 11. Sri Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the petitioner-applicant further submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision, this Court should extend the time for vacating the accommodation in question to enable the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/a. D. M. , City, Meerut as directed by the order dated 12th July, 2004, passed by Honble S. U. Khan, J. 12. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner-applicant as well as learned Counsel for the respondents. There is no dispute so as far as the powers of this Court is concerned, as relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner and this Court has been pleased to extend the time for vacation of the premises in question by further one month by the order dated 6th January, 2005, but as would be clear from the assertion made in this application and the affidavit filed in support of this application and the arguments advanced, the petitioner cannot claim the extension of time as of right merely because the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not decided the application for allotment filed by the petitioner. There is no time limit prescribed by the Court by the judgment and order dated 12th July, 2004 for deciding the application for allotment. The two directions issued by this Court by the order dated 12-7-2004 are not inter-dependant. The grievance of the petitioner-applicant, if any, may lie in filing the contempt petition against the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, instead of filing the present application. 13. In view of what has been stated above, this application has no force and is accordingly rejected. Application rejected. .