Held that appellants withdrew appeal on merits seeking time to vacate. Court stayed execution and imposed terms for relief within 12 months.
Stayed execution of decree; allowed appellants to vacate and handover possession within 12 months upon filing undertaking and paying arrears.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 98/2021
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mehrish For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
10/12/2021
(2 of 3)
[CSA-98/2021]
This second appeal has been filed by the appellant-tenants, against the judgment and decree for eviction dated 18.10.2019 passed in civil suit No. 124/2011 by learned Senior Civil Judge, Jhalrapatan which has been affirmed in appeal vide judgment dated 19.03.2021 passed by the Court of District Judge, Jhalawar, Rajasthan in civil first appeal No. 16/2019.
The appellant No. 1/1 Suresh Yadav S/o Dhulichand Yadav has filed written undertaking for himself and on behalf of all the other appellant-defendants that they are not interested in pursuing this second appeal on merits and ready to vacate the possession of rented premise and to handover to the respondentsdecree holders in compliance of decree for eviction, however, some time, for a period of three years, may be granted.
This Court issued notice to the respondents, however, notices have been received with the mark that “house was found lock”. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondents are deliberately avoiding service of notices and on the other hand they are pursuing the execution proceedings of the eviction decree before the Trial Court, wherein the warrant for possession has been issued. Now, after issuance of notices, the appellants have filed an undertaking as above.
Be that as it may, once the appellants are not pressing their second appeal on merits and only seek some time to vacate and handover peaceful possession to the respondents-decree holders, this Court without keeping this appeal pending anymore, deems just and proper to stay the execution of impugned decree for eviction and to grant some reasonable time to the appellants to vacate and handover the vacant possession of rented premises to
(3 of 3)
[CSA-98/2021]
the respondents pursuant to their undertaking on the following terms:-
With these observations, the second appeal stands disposed
of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SAHIL SONI /46
3 issues framed by the court
Whether second appeal against eviction decree should be dismissed on merits or disposed of per withdrawal.
Whether time should be granted to appellants to vacate premises upon filing undertaking.
Whether terms of undertaking should be imposed for eviction and possession.
Suresh Yadav S/o Dulichand
Omprakash Yadav S/o Babulal Yadav
Sudesh Bansal
Sahil Soni
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
