R.S.A. No.1619 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.1619 of 2009 Date of decision:10.12.2009. Lakhbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus Harinder Pal Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Kumar Vishav Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL). This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession has been decreed. On 18.11.2009, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant made a statement that he accepts the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, however, he requested the Court to grant two years' time to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession to the landlord. The appellant Lakhbir Singh S/o Kartar Singh was also present and acknowledged the correctness of the statement made by his counsel. He also filed an affidavit dated 18.11.2009 which was taken on record. In this background, notice of motion was issued limited to the grant of time to the appellant to vacate the premises and, in the R.S.A. No.1619 of 2009 -2- meantime, the operation of the impugned judgment and decree of both the Courts below was stayed till the next date of hearing. On the next date of hearing, the appellant was directed to bring the arrears of rent on 10.12.2009. Learned counsel for the appellant has admitted before this Court at the bar that the aforesaid order was passed in the presence of the appellant, but despite that neither he has come present in the Court nor arrears of rent has be en paid. Apparently, the appellant is taking the Court for a ride as he has neither brought the arrears of rent nor he has come present in the Court after getting stay on 18.11.2009. Since the appellant has already stated before this Court that he does not challenge the correctness of the judgment and decree of both the Courts below and the grant of two years' time to vacate the premises is not acceptable to the counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, therefore, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed though without any order as to costs. December 10, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE