SANGEETA CHANDRA,J. - (1.) This revision has been filed by the Bank against the judgment and order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Sant Kabir Nagar in SCC Suit No. 1 of 2016.
(2.) After arguing for some time, Mr. Tarun Varma, learned counsel for the revisionists fairly admits that there is no legal or factual infirmity in the order impugned, but he prays for some reasonable time to vacate the premises in question as the respondent is a Bank and despite advertisement being issued for alternative accommodation, it has yet to find suitable accommodation as per the guidelines set by the Reserve Bank of India.
(3.) Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, learned counsel appears for the respondent and he says that the learned court below has already given sufficient time of two months to vacate the premises. Even after two months when the vacant possession of the building was not delivered to the landlord and there was no interim order staying the operation of the judgment and order dated 30.01.2018, the landlord has filed Execution Case No. 23 of 2018, which was last listed on 11.04.2018, and the counsel for the Bank has sought adjournment before the Executing Court.;