The court's decision was based on the principle that an extension of time under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure would only be granted in rare cases to prevent manifest injustice.

( 1 ) THESE applications have been filed by the plaintiffs appellants after disposal of the appeal. By the first application (C. M. 472/2000), the appellants are seeking modification in the order passed on 20. 5. 1999 thereby to allow them time till 31. 3. 2001 to vacate the premises. By the second application (C. M. 473/2000), the appellants are seeking leave to place on record some additional documents in support of the first application. In the third application (Cm. 483/ 2000), the prayer is to stay the appellants dispossession till disposal of the first application.

( 2 ) THE appellants had filed appeal [r. F. A. (OS) 16 of 1999], against the order passed on 31. 8. 1998 in Suit No. 1814/98. By the said order learned Single Judge had rejected the appellants plaint wherein decree had been prayed by the appellants against the defendant/respondent for specific performance to register lease deed for the period from 1. 8. 1998 to 31. 7. 2000 and to grant a decree for declaration that appellant No. 1 is entitled to continue as a tenant in the premises.

( 3 ) DURING pendency of the appeal an application (C. M. 981 /99), was moved jointly by the parties under Order 23, Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for disposal of the appeal in terms of the settlement and also to take on record the undertaking of the appellant company given through Shri D. K. Jain/ one of the Directors of the appellant Company. The appellants had undertaken to vacate the premises on or before 31. 10. 2000. There were other terms of settlement and the respondent s undertaking also. The compromise was recorded and the undertakings were accepted. Appeal accordingly was allowed. Consequently, the impugned order of learned Single Judge was set aside. Plaint was ordered to be taken on record and in view of the settlement the suit was disposed of stating that terms of settlement as incorporated in C. M. 981/99 shall form part of the decree. Thus the decree incorporated the appellants unconditional undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 31. 10. 2000.

( 4 ) IN C. M. 472/2000 the appellants have narrated the circumstances due to which they say that it has not been possible for them to vacate the premises and thereby to honour their undertaking. As such prayer is made to extend the date for vacation on fresh undertakings of the appellants on whatever terms as may be considered fair and reasonable. The appellants have stated that they made bonafide and genuine efforts to find out an alternate premises for which an agreement was also arrived at but the alternate accommodation, which was to be occupied by the appellants had heavy seepage of water in various rooms, therefore, by mutual consent the said lease and hire agreement dated 15. 6. 2000 was terminated by agreement dated 21. 8. 2000. It is also stated that Mr. D. K. Jain, Director of the appellant Company, who had been looking after the estate and property of the Group Companies was taken ill and it has not been possible to the appellants to search out another accommodation.

( 5 ) THE applications have vehemently been opposed by the respondent contending that the appellants are bound to comply with the undertaking given to the Court. There is no question of granting extension of time. It was pointed out that the original lease, which had come to an end had provided for payment of double the amount of rent beyond the terms of lease; it also provided for forfeiture of the security amount. There was also a claim of the defendant against the appellants for mesne profits. All claims were given up by the respondent when terms were mutually settled and on one such mutually settled terms, the appeal was disposed of. Undertaking to vacate premises on or before 31. 10. 2000 was given by the appellant and the same was accepted by the Court. There is no scope now for the respondent even to agree for fresh terms. Without consent of the respondent, it will not be permissibl