[2025:RJ-JP:19753] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 69/2025 1. Hari Narayan S/o Ram Gopal Agarwal, R/o Neendar Raoji Ka Rasta, Tambaku Walon Ka Makan, Jaipur (Deceased) 1/1. Prem Narayan Agrawal, Aged About 77 Years, S/o Shri Hari Narayan Agarwal 1/2. Raj Kumar Agarwal, Aged About 61 Years, S/o Shri Hari Narayan Agarwal ----Petitioners Versus 1. Gulabchand Urf Rameshwarlal S/o Birdhichand Brahmin, R/o Jaipur (Died) Through Legal Representatives 1/1. Tara Shankar S/o Gulab Chand, R/o Near Jageshwar Mahadeo Temple, Brahmpuri, Jaipur 1/2. Santosh D/o Gulab Chand, R/o Near Jageshwar Mahadeo Temple, Brahmpuri, Jaipur 1/3. Indra Devi W/o Ramjilal D/o Gulabchand, R/o Near Jageshwar Mahadeo Temple, Brahmpuri, Jaipur 1/4. Kanta Devi W/o Bhagwan Sahai D/o Gulabchand, R/o Near Jageshwar Mahadeo Temple, Brahmpuri, Jaipur 1/5. Lalli Devi W/o Gulabchand, (Deleted) R/o Near Jageshwar Mahadeo Temple, Brahmpuri, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma for Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Singhal for Mr. N.K. Maloo, Senior Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 09/05/2025 1. Instant civil misc. application is preferred by appellant defendant in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 129/2003 disposed of on 23.05.2024. [2025:RJ-JP:19753] (2 of 4) [CMAP-69/2025] 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner applicant submits that due to sudden family emergency, the appellants defendants have failed to submit undertaking in pursuant to order dated 23.05.2024 within a period of thirty days. He further submits that now an applicant has filed application for extension of time and grant additional seven days to submit undertaking before the trial court. He further submits that daughter-in-law of appellant (Pooja Agarwal) was suffering from Metastatic Carcinoma and she is under regular constant medical care of him and due to continuous engagement in treatment of Pooja Agarwal, the appellant applicant could not submit the undertaking in time. He further submits that even two brother-in-laws of applicant Prem Narayan were expired on 21.03.2024 and 04.05.2024 and the entire family was under the shock & trauma, which also prevented them to file undertaking in time. He further submits that the entire record including death certificate were filed in support of application. He also submits that only after filing of execution petition the applicant came to know about execution of decree in pursuant to order dated 23.05.2024. At last, he submitted that one week may be granted to furnish undertaking before the trial court. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent non-applicant. He submits that two the brother-in-law of applicant were expired prior to impugned order dated 23.05.2025. He further submits that no specific record filed to indicate that present applicant was busy for entire 11 months in treatment of his daughter-in-law Pooja Agarwal. He further submits that the instant application is filed after a delay of more than 11 months. [2025:RJ-JP:19753] (3 of 4) [CMAP-69/2025] 4. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.129/2003 was disposed of on 23.05.2024 with consent of learned counsel for parties and a time till 31.12.2026 was granted to appellant defendant to vacate the suit premises and hand over the vacant possession to plaintiff/representative of plaintiff. It was also directed to submit an undertaking with one surety of ₹2,00,000/- to the satisfaction of trial court, about compliance of order dated 23.05.2024. 6. The appellants defendants have not submitted any undertaking in pursuant to order dated 23.05.2024 and now the instant application is filed on 07.05.2025 for extension of time of one week. It appears that the instant application is filed after more than 11 months and 13 days. The grounds of delay are considered by us. This application is filed only when execution application was filed by respondent plaintiff. 7. From Para no.4 of the application, it is apparent that both the brother-in-law of applicant Prem Narayan were expired in March and May, 2024 and the date indicate that it was prior to passing of impugned order on dated 23.05.2024.The daughter-in- law of applicant Pooja Agawal is suffering from Metastatic Carcinoma and she is taking treatment since 2022. As per record PAT CT-scan was conducted on 17.06.2024 and since June, 2024 she is under constant medical care of family. The medical prescription annexed with application clearly indicate that Pooja Agarwal was not admitted in any of the hospital for the entire duration or a substantial part of aforesaid duration. We have considered the report available from Page no.14 to 17. [2025:RJ-JP:19753] (4 of 4) [CMAP-69/2025] 8. Having considered the grounds raised herein, I am of the considered view that these grounds are not sufficient to draw a conclusion that the appellants defendants were busy so that they could not file undertaking within a period of thirty days. Even if assuming that the undertaking could not be filed within thirty days, even then the application for extension of time has to be moved within a reasonable time but moving an application after 11 months is certainly negligence for which there has to be some reason beyond control of appellants defendants. Herein, learned counsel has reiterated that upto date rent has been paid to the plaintiff. 9. Considering the submissions, no case is made out for extension of time to submit undertaking in pursuant to order dated 23.05.2024. 10. Thus, misc. application sans merit and same is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of aforesaid, the instant civil misc. application preferred by appellant-applicant is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /74