:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 520 OF 2009 SUMMONS NO. 520 OF 2009 SUMMONS NO. 520 OF 2009 IN IN IN GUARDIANSHIP GUARDIANSHIP GUARDIANSHIP PETITION NO. 144 OF PETITION NO. 144 OF PETITION NO. 144 OF 2007 2007 2007 Ms. Dhara M. Katira. ... Petitioner. V/s. Dr. Anees Ahmed Shafiqque Ahmad & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. Suneel Mogre for the Petitioner. Mr. J.S. Kini i/b. S. Dubey for Respondent No.1. Mr. M.M. Vashi i/b. Deepak Thakre for Respondent No.2. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 02ND 02ND 02ND APRIL 2009. APRIL 2009. APRIL 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard Mr. Vashi, appearing for the Second Respondent in support of the Chamber Summons. 2. This is an application for extension of time to vacate the premises more particularly described in prayer clause (a). 3. In the affidavit in support, the Second Respondent states that she has been inducted in the Nursing Home premises and is in possession. She points out that the premises by MHADA may be allotted to her and until that allotment is made and considering that she is a practising Doctor, the time be extended. :2: 4. The Counsel appearing for the Second Respondent Mr. Vashi and Mr. Mogre, appearing for the Petitioner have been heard at length. 5. With their assistance, I have perused the material including the earlier order. 6. Merely because there is an application made by the First Respondent which is pending and that the Second Respondent has applied to MHADA for allotment of premises which would take some time, I do not think that this is a fit case to relieve the Second Respondent from an undertaking given to this Court on the earlier occasion. The undertaking has been given to this Court by the Second Respondent that she will vacate the premises on 31st March 2009 and would not seek any extension. The Second Respondent was obliged to vacate the premises pursuant to her earlier undertaking. In these circumstances, and when one extension has been already granted, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant any further indulgence and relieve the Second Respondent from the consequences of the undertaking given to this Court. 7. The Chamber Summons is dismissed but without any order to costs. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)