1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (W) NO. 1420/2011 in WRIT PETITION NO. 6003/2010 (Shri Ranjan Purushottam Darwekar vrs. Sou. Vidya Maqdhavrao Shende) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.C.Sangamnerkar, Adv for applicant/petitioner Mr. A.K.Choube, Adv for respondent. CORAM: R.K.DESHPANDE J. DATED: 30 th JUNE, 2011. Writ Petition No. 6003/2010 filed by the present applicant/petitioner was dismissed by this Court by its judgment and order dated 18th January, 2011. At that time the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/petitioner gave an undertaking that he shall vacate the premises on or before 19th June, 2011. The relevant portion which is recorded in the judgment dated 18th January, 2011, is reproduced below. “12. At this stage, Shri Sangamnerkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, after seeking instructions from the petitioner who is present in the Court today, states that the petitioner is ready to vacate the premises within a period of five months from the date of this order and an undertaking in that regard would be furnished in this Court till 20th January, 2011. 2 13. The request made on behalf of the petitioner is fair and reasonable and Shri Choube, the learned counsel for the respondent also does not seriously object the oral request made on behalf of the petitioner. 14. In such circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to occupy the premises till 19th June, 2011 only and the possession of the premises should be handed over by the petitioner to the respondent on or before the said date. Order accordingly. No order as to costs.” Again this application has been made for grant of extension by further period of six months. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the claim for extension of time. In view of the fact that this Court has already accepted the undertaking given by the petitioner to vacate the premises till 19th June, 2011, it is not possible to grant further extension. Hence, the application is rejected. JUDGE Rvjalit