PRIYA DINESH Vs. K.E. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT in O.S. No. 1360/2007 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Ernakulam, and appellant in A.S. No. 9 of 2009 of the court of learned Additional District Judge (VI), Ernakulam is the petitioner. She suffered a decree for eviction from the suit property as per Exts. P1 and P2. That decree is being put to execution in E.P. No. 105/2009. In the mean time, petitioner challenged Exts.P1 and P2 before the appellate court where she made an undertaking to vacate the suit property in May, 2010 and acting upon that undertaking, learned Additional District Judge granted time to the petitioner till May, 2010. Execution of decree was accordingly stayed till then. Petitioner however, was not able to find an alternative accommodation and hence could not stand by her commitment. Respondent -decree holder has filed E.A. No. 267/2010 for revival of proceedings and to evict petitioner without notice. Now, there is an order for delivery by 9.7.2010 with police assistance. Petitioner seeks further time to vacate the suit property. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that on account of other compulsions petitioner was not able to find an alternative accommodation and seeks three months' time to vacate the suit property.

(2.) THE matter is now pending before learned Additional District Judge and on the request of the petitioner, learned Additional District Judge has granted time to the petitioner till May, 2010. In such a situation proper course open to the petitioner is to approach the learned Additional District Judge with a request for further time stating reasons and seek relief. There is no reason why this Court should interfere in the matter and extend the time as applied for.