Dismissed
Jamil Ahmed v. Shanti Devi
Delhi HCRSA/329/2016
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
Single-line order denying fresh time to vacate suit premises where appellant had ample prior time and respondent opposed on grounds of filed contempt petition.
What did the court decide?
No fresh grant of time to vacate premises.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
$~15
¶2
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
¶3
- RSA 329/2016
¶4
JAMIL AHMED ..... Appellant
¶5
Through: Ms. Geetika Sharma, Adv.
¶6
versus SHANTI DEVI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tomar, Adv.
¶7
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA O R D E R % 04.09.2017
¶8
CM No. 32030/2017 (for extension of time to vacate the premises filed by the appellant)
¶9
- While disposing of the second appeal as not pressed vide order dated 7.11.2016, time was granted to the appellant to vacate the suit premises on or before 31.8.2017. Appellant already therefore has enjoyed a long period of time to stay in the premises. Counsel for the respondent opposes any fresh grant of time as he states that he has already moved a contempt petition. There is no ground to increase the time for vacating the suit premises.
¶10
- Dismissed.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- appellant
Jamil Ahmed
- respondent
Shanti Devi
Coram
AI extract
Valmikaj Mehta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court