1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8406/2008 IN A.O. NO. 69 OF 2008 (Ravindra Thakurdas Harwani & Ors. vs. Municipal Corpn. Of City of Amravati & Anr. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 14, 2008. Heard Shri Gilda, learned counsel for the applicants/ appellants and Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate with Shri R.M. Bhangde, learned counsel for the Respondents. The prayer in this Civil Application is to extend the time granted by this Court vide judgment dated 23.9.2008 to vacate the premises till 31.12.2008. Time granted is up to 15.11.2008. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in appeal and applicants in present application has contended that the structure where the appellants are expected to shift their shops is incomplete and there are no railings. It is contended that one visitor to the complex viz. Suyog Ganeshrao Ambulkar, an Engineering Student fell on the ground floor because of absence of railings and was in coma and expired on 9.11.2008. It is also stated that the electric metres are yet to be shifted and 2 shifting requires about one month. In the absence of electric connection, the applicants/ appellants will not be in a position to have their shops in the new structure. Lastly, it is contended that the shopkeepers of the other complex viz., Dwarka complex are not required to shift at all and they are still carrying on the business from the very same place. It is also pointed out that one of the occupants of Joshi market (market in which the applicants presently have their shops) have filed an Appeal against Order and in that Appeal against order, interim orders are operating and matter is now fixed on 17.11.2008. In these circumstances, the request is to permit the applicants' time till 31.12.2008 or in any case till 15.12.2008 to shift to new structure. It is also pointed out that this Court has in one of the disputes in Second Appeal, allowed the Second Appeal and that person claiming the shop block has filed Civil Suit which is pending and same is fixed today itself before the trial Court. Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate with Shri R.M. Bhangde, Advocate has contended that the appellants/ applicants have already approached the Hon'ble Apex Court and Apex Court has fixed the matter on 21.11.2008. Pointing out the deadline of 15.11.2008, early hearing was 3 sought and after considering the rival contentions, the Hon'ble Apex Court did not find it necessary to prepone the hearing and the matter is scheduled on 21.11.2008. Attention is also being invited to letter dated 11.11.2008 forwarded to learned Senior Advocate by an Advocate on record from New Delhi. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Gauhati High Court in the case of Sudhangshu Mohan Deb vs. Niroda Sundari Dhupi , reported at AIR 1998 Gau. 8, the contention has been raised that as the Hon'ble Apex Court is seized of the matter, this Court should not interfere now and it has become functus officio. It is further stated that insofar as challenge in Appeal against Order is concerned, it is rendered infructuous because the applicants/ appellants before this Court have amicably settled the controversy and appellants/ applicants have agreed to hand over the possession to the respondents by 15.11.2008 itself. It is also contended that the dispute about Second Appeal or then pending Civil Suit, which is stated to be fixed today, is not relevant for the present purposes. It is further stated that when this Court passed the judgment dated 23.9.2008 everything was well within the knowledge of the applicants, as such no case is being made out warranting extension of time. 4 This Court on 23.9.2008, after hearing parties and with a view to put an end to controversy once for all, has tried to accommodate both parties and accordingly after several hearings the judgment came to be passed on 23.9.2008. The applicants were, therefore, aware of the deadline and said deadline was fixed specifically as per their request because of Deepawali celebrations which were in the last week of October 2008. In these circumstances, the excuses now sought to be put forth cannot be looked into by this Court as the matter is now pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The applicants/ appellants appear to have made an effort before the Hon'ble Apex Court for preponing of hearing and it is apparent that such preponing was sought only because of deadline of 15.11.2008. It cannot be accepted that all these facts which are relevant for preponing the matter were not pointed out to the Hon'ble Apex Court by the applicants/ appellants. In these circumstances, I find myself unable to consider the request mentioned above. Civil Application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE 5 *GS.