1 S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.92/2008 (Hanuman Das Vs. Vijay Kumar) Date of Order :: 4th April 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Deepesh Beniwal ) Mr. Rakesh Matoria ), for the appellant. Mr. Prashant Sharma) Mr. Hemant Jain ), for the respondent. ... BY THE COURT: This second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar in Civil Appeal No.16/2007 affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2007 as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Raisinghnagar in Civil Suit No.18/2004 whereby suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent was decreed, was considered for motion admission on 17.03.2008 and notice was issued to the respondent-plaintiff on the limited point as to why time as prayed for by the appellant for the purpose of vacating the premises be not granted only for the submission as made on behalf of the appellant that he was ready to vacate the premises on granting of some reasonable time. The matter was considered on 01.04.2008 and at the request of counsel for the appellant for the purpose of completing his instructions, the matter was placed for consideration today. It has been pointed out on behalf of the respondent- plaintiff that the appellant has not made payment towards the arrears of rent and on being put to question if the appellant is ready to make entire payment of the arrears of rent and to 2 make further payment of the reasonable amount towards mesne profits, learned counsel for the appellant submitted on instructions that the decree in question was put to execution by the respondent-plaintiff before passing of the order dated 17.03.2008 and on that very date i.e. 17.03.2008 possession was recovered by Sale Ameen and locks of the plaintiff were put on the shop in question; and at this juncture, the appellant is not in a position to make payment of arrears towards decreetal amount or to make further payment towards mesne profits. For the appellant not coming out with concrete proposition and rather expressing unwillingness to honour the money decree as passed against him and looking to the overall circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any reason now to consider the request of the appellant to grant any further time to vacate the suit premises. On the other hand, the matter stands concluded with findings of fact and no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. For the respondent having been noticed only at the request as earlier made by the appellant on 17.03.2008 for granting some time to vacate, it appears appropriate to allow the respondent costs quantified at Rs.2,200/- (two thousand two hundred). Ordered accordingly. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK