Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2158 (JHR)

Binay Kumar Sinha v. Chandra Narayan Prasad

2017-12-14

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. – Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2016/31.03.2016 passed by the First Appellate Court of Learned Principal District Judge, Dumka in Title (Eviction) Appeal No. 03/2006. 3. The matter was earlier heard before this Bench on 15.06.2017 and following order was recorded. " After extensive arguments from both the sides, learned counsel for the appellant has proposed that appellant would submit an undertaking to vacate the premises within a stipulated time frame. On that submission, learned counsel for the respondents have no objection. Let such an undertaking on affidavit be filed by 19.06.2017. List the case on 20.06.2017 under the heading "For Orders". Though, matter was placed thereafter before a Coordinate Bench, but has been listed again before this Bench by order of Hon''ble the Acting Chief Justice. 4. Undertaking has been furnished by the appellant through a supplementary affidavit dated 17.06.2017, whereby the appellant proposed to vacate the suit premises within a reasonable time of six months i.e. by 15.12.2017. Now, through I.A. No. 9354/2017, appellant prays for further extension of time for four months to vacate the suit premises on the grounds that he has purchased a suitable property on consideration amount of Rs. 45.00 lakhs through Sale Deed dated 01.11.2017 in the name of his son (part of Annexure-1 series to the instant I.A.). According to the appellant, the property needed renovation. Appellant has started construction of the house in full swing, but due to shortage of certain building material in the district of Dumka, it could not get completed by the deadline 15.12.2017. The appellant therefore sought extension of time for six months ending 15.05.2018 for vacating the suit premises. 5. Respondents have opposed the prayer for time stating that the Sale Deed itself reveals that the appellant had purchased the old pucca house along with Khaparposh which is quite habitable. Appellant is making only renovation of the outskirts of the purchased house. 6. Be that as it may, on consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the affidavit/interlocutory application and rejoinder thereto, this Court is of the view that the appellant having intended to vacate the suit premises by 15.12.2017, can be granted further extension to vacate the same by 15.03.2018. This would suit the ends of justice. Be that as it may, on consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the affidavit/interlocutory application and rejoinder thereto, this Court is of the view that the appellant having intended to vacate the suit premises by 15.12.2017, can be granted further extension to vacate the same by 15.03.2018. This would suit the ends of justice. The instant appeal stands disposed of in terms of the undertaking and the orders passed herein-above. The impugned judgment and decree stands modified to that extent. Decree accordingly. Pending I.As. are accordingly closed.