BABY BETHEL HOME Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 20th December, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in an application seeking enlargement of time fixed for payment of the amount as directed in the judgment dated 31.10.2006 recorded in W.P.(C).No.12871 of 2006(G). THE application was dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs.5,000/-. Learned Single Judge found out some false statements made in the affidavit accompanying the application for enlargement of time. THE application, as mentioned above, was dismissed primarily on the ground that there was some inaccuracies in the affidavit filed by the applicant. While, however, doing so, the real aspect of the case that the applicant, i.e. the appellant in this appeal, had brought a Demand Draft for Rs.2.5 lakhs and was prepared to pay the rest within two weeks was completely lost sight of by the learned Single Judge. When counsel for the 2nd respondent was confronted with the situation that it would be more beneficial to receive the money instead of going for sale of property of the applicant, which may be a distress sale, counsel for the 2nd respondent says that he is willing to accept the Draft offered by the applicant. That being so, a Demand Draft for Rs.2.5 lakhs has been handed over in Court to the counsel for the 2nd respondent and the counsel for the appellant-applicant undertakes on behalf of the applicant that an amount of Rs.2 lakhs shall be paid within two weeks, whereas the remaining shall be paid after negotiations. THE course suggested by the counsel for the appellant is acceptable to the counsel for the 2nd respondent. That being so, we set aside the order dated 20th December, 2006 and allow this appeal with the arrangement as mentioned above. THE property of the appellant be handed over to him by the respondents forthwith.