[2025:RJ-JP:15796] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 39/2025 Kesardev Verma S/o Shri Budharmal Ji Verma, Aged About 76 Years, Resident Of M-36, Ramnagar Colony, Behind Sodala Police Station, Jaipur Presently Shopkeeper Of Shop No. 20, Luniya Bhawan, New Market, Motisingh Bhomiyon Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Vijay Kumar Luniya Adopted Son Of Late Shri Tilokchand Ji Luniya, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of House No. 2481, Luniya Bhawan, New Market, Motisingh Bhomiyon Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. 2. Smt. Hetkanwar W/o Late Shri Tilokchand Ji Luniya, (Died During The Pendency Of Application On 01.02.2014), Resident Of House No. 2481, Luniya Bhawan, New Market, Motisingh Bhomiyon Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 09/04/2025 1. This application is filed seeking the extension of time for vacating the demised premises. 2. The applicant is a tenant and had filed SBCWP No.16728/2024. During the pendency of the petition, the mediation yielded fruit, parties arrived at a settlement. The terms and conditions of the settlement dated 12.12.2024 were produced before the Court and the petition was not pressed on merits. [2025:RJ-JP:15796] (2 of 2) [WMAP-39/2025] 3. The terms and conditions of settlement were made part of the order and the petition was disposed of in view of the settlement arrived at. The applicant agreed to vacate the demised property within one year as per terms and conditions. Now the application is drafted and filed on 09.01.2025 seeking extension of time to vacate the demised premises. 4. The terms and conditions were agreed between the parties. This was not a time granted by the Court rather the petition was not pressed on merits and was disposed of in view of the settlement. 5. In such circumstances, no case is made out for this Court to modify the order or grant extension of time. It cannot be lost sight of that even as on date the applicant has almost eight months for vacating the premises. 6. In view of the above, the application is dismissed. (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/1