Patna High CourtC.R./40/2014disposed

Nawal Kishore Singh v. Ramola Singh

2016-11-16Mr. Justice V. Nath2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Revision No.40 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Nawal Kishore Singh Son Of Late Ram Naresh Prasad Resident Of Mohalla- Maharajganj, Kurmi Tola, Police Station- Alamganj, Guljarbagh, District- Patna At Present Proprietor Of M/S N.K. Engineering Works, Resident Of Mohalla Zion Complex, Swarjyapuri Road, Opposite Fire Brigade Road, Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Gaya .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. Ramola Singh W/O Late Deepak Singh, Daughter Of Late Robert Lal Resident Of Mohalla- Ziaon Complex, Swarjyapuri Road, Opposite Fire Brigade Road, Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Gaya .... .... Opposite party ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL ORDER 16-11-2016 Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

This matter was heard earlier and from the order dated 9.11.2016 it transpires that the opposite party has agreed to the proposal by the petitioner that he would vacate the suit premises within a period of nine months. However, the petitioner was directed by the said order to file undertaking in that regard. The undertaking in that regard has been filed today on behalf of the petitioner and a copy of the same has also been served upon the other side. Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the other side, has expressed his agreement for grant of nine months' time to the petitioner to vacate the suit premises in view of the above undertaking given.

After considering the submission and in view of the undertaking given by the petitioner, this revision application is disposed of directing the petitioner to vacate the suit premises on 10.8.2017 as agreed by the learned Counsel for the parties. The

Patna High Court C.R. No.40 of 2014 (10) dt.16-11-2016 petitioner shall handover the vacant possession of the suit premises to the opposite party on the said date. Any breach of the terms of undertaking would amount to contempt of this Court. (V. Nath, J.) Snkumar/- U