JUDGMENT Rakesh Srivastava, J. This is an application for review of the order dated 31.05.2016. 2. Heard Shri Mohd. Aarif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the applicants/respondents and Shri Anurag Narain, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners/ landlords. 3. Shri Mohd. Aarif Khan, Senior Advocate, has pressed the following two grounds: "(e) Because the cost of Rs. 50,000/- awarded against the applicants would suffer great hardship as they are unable to pay such a huge amount, hence the judgment passed may be reviewed. (f) Because in any case, the applicants should have been provided some time to vacate the premises, thereby the judgment passed may be reviewed." 4. Shri Khan, has also placed before this Court a certified copy of the order dated 30.07.2016, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hardoi, in the execution proceedings initiated by the petitioner, by means of which the applicants/respondents have been required to vacate the shop in dispute by 30.08.2016. 5. After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the applicants/ respondents has submitted that in case some reasonable time is granted to the applicants/ respondents, they would vacate the shop in dispute. 6. Though the review application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed, at this juncture, Shri Anurag Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners/landlords has stated that in case, the applicants/ respondents hand over vacant possession of the shop in dispute forthwith the petitioners/landlords would not press for the cost over and above Rs. 20,000/-. 7. In view of the above, with the consent of Shri Mohd. Aarif Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the applicants/respondents and Shri Anurag Narain, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners/landlords, the applicants/ respondents are granted time up to 04.09.2016 to vacate the shop in dispute subject to the following terms and conditions: (1) The applicants/ respondents shall pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and file an affidavit before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hardoi, by 12.08.2016, containing the undertaking that they would hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the shop in dispute on or before 04.09.2016. (2) In case, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and file an affidavit before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hardoi, by 12.08.2016, containing the undertaking that they would hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the shop in dispute on or before 04.09.2016. (2) In case, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards cost is not paid to the petitioners/landlords by 12.08.2016 or the affidavit containing the undertaking is not filed by the applicants/respondents within the time mentioned above, the applicants/ respondents shall not be entitled to be benefit of the order passed today and in that eventuality the applicants/respondents shall be liable to be evicted forthwith. In case, the applicant/ respondents file an affidavit containing the undertaking mentioned above, the order dated 30.07.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hardoi, shall be kept in abeyance. (3) In case, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is not paid to the petitioners, or after filing an undertaking the peaceful possession of the shop in dispute is not handed over by the applicants/respondents to the petitioners/landlord by 04.09.2016, then it would be open to the petitioners to get the order dated 31.05.2016 executed in addition to the right of the petitioners/landlords to file contempt petition. (4) In case, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is paid by the applicants/respondents and peaceful vacant possession of the shop in dispute is handed over to the petitioners/ landlords, within the time mentioned above, the petitioners shall not press the execution for realizing the balance cost of Rs. 30,000/- awarded by this Court. 8. With the above observation the review application is disposed of.