FATHIMA P S Vs. SIDDIQU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This must be read in continuation of the order dated 9.9.2010.

(2.) The petitioner who has already received an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in pursuance of a consent order, now wants to avoid the inconvenient part of the consent order namely, the obligation to surrender possession of an item of property. She lamented before us at the stage of admission that if the immediate execution of the direction to vacation were resorted to she will be thrown to the streets. We suggested that the parties come to an agreement on the question of grant of further time for the petitioner to surrender the building. Counsel wanted to take time. The respondent/ decree holder very reasonably accepted the suggestion that interest at the rates specified in the consent order be directed to be paid to the decree holder for the delay in surrender of the property. The petitioner is keeping the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- with her and is refusing to comply with the inconvenient part of consent order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for time to take instructions. The learned counsel today submits that the petitioner is un-willing to accept the said suggestion made by the respondent.