Bombay High Court Hears Second Appeal Against Setting Aside of Specific Performance Decree—Expedited Hearing Ordered Despite Adjournment Requests. The appeal, admitted on questions of law, was treated as part-heard and oral judgment delivered after refusal to grant further time.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR
  • 129
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, heard Second Appeal No. 210/2013 arising from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The original plaintiffs, Ramesh and Baburao, filed Special Civil Suit No. 707/1995 alleging that defendant Manohar entered into an agreement on 21.1.1991 to sell 5 acres out of survey No.86 for a total consideration of Rs.8,75,000, with Rs.50,000 paid as earnest. The balance was to be paid in instalments. The trial court decreed the suit on 4.9.2004, granting specific performance. The defendants appealed, and the first appellate court (District Judge-9, Nagpur) set aside the decree on 16.3.2013 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 589/2012. The appellants (original defendants) then preferred the present second appeal, which was admitted on 27.11.2013 on certain questions and with interim orders, and the court directed expedition due to the long-pending dispute dating back to 1992. The matter was fixed for final hearing, but multiple adjournments were sought on behalf of the respondent no.1. On 8.3.2016, the respondent no.1 appeared in person and requested time to engage another advocate; the court granted three days, making it clear that no further adjournment would be given as the appeal was part-heard. On 11.3.2016, despite a further application on medical grounds, the court proceeded with the hearing and delivered an oral judgment. The provided text ends before the substantive discussion of the merits and the final decision, so the outcome of the second appeal is unknown from the extracted portion.

Issue of Consideration

SECOND APPEAL NO. 210 2013

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (03) 147

Second Appeal No. 210/2013

2016-03-11

A.B. Chaudhari, J.

Shri A.M. Deshpande with Shri Pravin Agrawal for appellants; Shri Prashant Mukund for respondent no.1; Advocate K.K. Pillai (absent); None for respondent nos.2(a) to 2(d)

Manohar s/o Natthuji Dhawad (since deceased), Smt. Karuna wd/o Manohar Dhawad (since deceased), Smt. Anuradha w/o Hemantrao Sabane, Rajeev s/o Manohar Dhawad, Smt. Sunita w/o Dr. Suhas Borghate, Smt. Jyoti @ Kalyani w/o Kiran Sable

Ramesh s/o Janrao Patil (Phiske), Baburao Baliram Kathawate (died) through LRs Smt. Prabhavati wd/o Baburao Kathwate, Vijay s/o Baburao Kathwate, Ajay s/o Baburao Kathwate, Upendra s/o Baburao Kathwate

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Suit for specific performance of contract dated 21.1.1991 for sale of agricultural land.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiffs sought specific performance and possession of 5 acres of land in survey No.86.

Filing Reason

Alleged breach of agreement to sell by defendant Manohar.

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed suit on 4.9.2004; First appellate court set aside decree on 16.3.2013.

Judgment Excerpts

Manohar had entered into an agreement on 21.1.1991 with Plaintiff No.2Baburao for sale of 5 acres of field out of survey No.86, area 9.01 acres; and Plaintiff No.2Baburao paid Rs. 50,000/ as earnest to appellant/defendant Manohar out of total agreed consideration of Rs. 8,75,000/ for five acres. Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is going on since the year 1992, it would be appropriate that final hearing of the Appeal is expedited and it is accordingly expedited.

Procedural History

Special Civil Suit No. 707/1995 filed by plaintiffs in Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur; decreed on 4.9.2004. Defendants appealed: Regular Civil Appeal No. 589/2012 before District Judge-9, Nagpur; allowed on 16.3.2013, setting aside trial court decree. Second Appeal No. 210/2013 filed by defendants in High Court; admitted on 27.11.2013 with questions of law and expedited. Multiple adjournments sought by respondent no.1; part-heard on 7.3.2016; final arguments heard and oral judgment delivered on 11.3.2016.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Lack of Demand and Acceptance of Bribe. Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside as prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reas...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Emergency Arbitrator's Award and Clarifies Appealability of Enforcement Orders. The Court ruled that an Emergency Arbitrator's award is enforceable under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration Act, and orders under Section 17(2) are a...