MC 763/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. B Chakraborty, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. GN Sahewalla, Senior Advocate assisted by Md. Aslam, Advocate for the petitioner. By this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereafter refer red to as the Act), condonation of the delay of 1395 in preferring the accompany ing review application has been sought for. The judgment and order dated 17.03.2 006 rendered by this Court in CRP No. 228/2002 is sought to be reviewed. The learned counsel for the parties at the outset has apprised this Court that h aving regard to the lingering controversy and the several bouts of litigation re sulting therefrom they intend to put a quietus thereto on the basis of an amicab le settlement. The rival averments in the instant application have, therefore, been approached in the above perspective. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the grounds put forward in the application for condonation of the delay in preferrin g the accompanying review application, this Court is of the view that the same h as been sufficiently explained. The delay is therefore condoned. The background of facts shortly put is that the applicant had taken on rent the premises owned by the opposite party. On the ground of default and bonafide req uirement the latter instituted a suit being TS No.9/1999 for his eviction theref rom. The suit was decreed on full contest on both the grounds, whereafter, an ap peal was fled by the applicant, in which he succeeded. On his turn, the opposit e party being aggrieved approached this Court with CRP No. 228/2002. By the jud gment and order dated 17.03.2006, referred to hereinabove, the revision petition was allowed and the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was restored . The applicant approached the Apex Court with Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No (s).656-657/2008. Though, initially there was a stay of the execution of the pro ceedings meanwhile instituted pursuant to the decree, the Apex Court eventually declined to interfere, however, granting the applicants six months time to vacat e the premises. This was by order dated 26.03.2009. Consequentially the applica nt vacated the premises on 24.07.2009. In the execution proceedings, however, t he opposite party pursued his claim for an amount of Rs. 5,55,988.70 comprised o f three heads, i) rent at the rate of Rs. 1301/- for the months of April, and Ma y, 1999, ii) compensation by way of damage for the period from 01.04.1999 to 24. 07.1999 and iii) costs of Rs. 2886.70/-. Before this Court the learned counsel for the parties are one in submitting that the present dues of the opposite party stands approximately at Rs. 3,95,000/- c onsidering the deposits made in the interregnum. Whereas, Mr. Sahewalla, on ins tructions submits that on a reconsideration of the attendant facts and circumsta nces, the applicant is ready and willing to round up his claim at Rs. 2,95,000/- , Mr. Chakraborty, insists that the amount should further be scaled down to 1,50 ,000/-. Having regard to the premise in which the present issue is being addressed to by this Court, the long drawn legal tussle in which the parties have been engaged as well as their conciliatory orientations, it is considered appropriate to reso lve the debate by requiring the applicant to pay an amount of Rs. 2 lacs in all by way of full and final satisfaction of the decree for the execution of which t he proceedings related thereto is pending before the learned trial Court. Order ed accordingly. The aforementioned amount of Rs. 2 lacs would be paid by the applicant to the op posite party within a period of four (4) months reckonable from today i.e. 02.11 .2010 in two equal instalments of Rs. 1 lac on the turn of every two (2) months. As it has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the earlier amounts h ave been deposited by him in court, the opposite party will be at liberty to wit hdraw the same, if not already done. The miscellaneous application stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.