1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.415 OF 2008 Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Western Region, Clarks Road, Mahalaxmi, Bombay. Appellant Versus 1 Kanhaiyalal Achantrai Dodhani 2 Nandlal Manikmal Galani 3 Mohanlal Sangatmal Ahuja 4 Holaram Rawaldas Chhetia Respondents Mr.V.G.Gangapurwala,, advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.P.Shah, advocate holding for Mr.Pushpak Shendurnikar, advocate for Respondents. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 21st July, 2009. P.C.: 1 This is an appeal by original defendant raising exception to the concurrent findings recorded by Courts below. 2 Respondents-original plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 475/1988 claiming eviction of defendant and for possession of the suit property leased out in favour of defendant-Corporation. After expiry of period for which lease deed was executed, plaintiffs claimed recovery of property after terminating the lease created in favour of defendant. 3 Suit was resisted by defendant by filing written statement. 2 Defendant controverted the contentions raised by plaintiff. 4 The trial Court, after recording evidence of the parties, recorded a finding that plaintiffs have established their case and as such granted decree, as prayed for by the plaintiffs in view of judgment and decree dated 26.04.2000. Original defendant raised exception to the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.51/2000, which came to be heard and disposed of by 3 rd Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Dhule, who was pleased to dismiss same by judgment dated 29.10.2004. 5 I have heard arguments advanced by Shri V.G.Gangapurwala, learned Counsel for appellant and Shri S.P.Shah, learned Counsel holding for Shri Pushpak Shendurnikar, advocate for Respondents. 6 I have perused the judgments delivered by both the Courts below. The argument advanced by learned Counsel for appellant essentially relates to appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal. 7 Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. 8 It has been urged by learned Counsel for appellant that the appellant – original defendant is in possession of the property since last several years and is running business of selling petroleum products. Some time would be required for removing the infrastructure raised on the open 3 plot. 9 Considering the difficulty faced by appellant and after hearing learned Counsel for Respondents – original plaintiffs, I deem it appropriate to grant six months’ time for vacating suit premises. The judgment and decree passed by II Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dhule , on 26.04.2000 in R.C.S. No.475/88, shall not be put to execution for a period of six months. The appellant – original defendant shall hand over vacant possession of suit property on expiry of period of six months, to the plaintiffs. 10 In view of this, Civil Application No.5212 of 2005 does not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/sa41508