Gulab Ramjan Khatik (Deceased Thr. L/H.) Farid Gulab Khtik And Others v. Sau. Indumati Adhik Pawar

2206sa312.12.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Second Appeal No.312 of 2012 (Gulab Ramjan Khatik, since deceased, through his legal heirs Farid Gulab Khatik and others v. Indumati Adhik Pawar) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri R.B. Paranjape, Advocate, i/b Shri M.N. Sandhyanshiv, Advocate for Appellants.

Shri Amit Gharte, Advocate for Shri J.D. Khairnar, Advocate for Respondent.

Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.

Dated : 22 nd June, 2015 The Trial Court passed a decree in Special Civil Suit No.13 of 1997 for specific performance of contract. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed Regular Civil Appeal No.47 of 2000 on 20-12-2011. Hence, the original defendant is before this Court in this second appeal.

Undisputedly, before the Trial Court, the summons was served upon the defendant. He appeared in the matter and took time for filing the written statement, but failed to file it. The matter was fixed for ex parte evidence. The plaintiff examined the witnesses. The defendant failed to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff and remained absent. The Trial Court passed a decree for specific performance of contract. The learned counsel for the appellants has urged that during the pendency of the suit, there was a settlement arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant, and in view of that

2206sa312.12.odt settlement, the defendant was under the impression that the suit shall be withdrawn, and hence he did not participate in the proceedings.

After going through the memo of appeal, I do not find that any such ground was raised before the lower Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the appellants also concedes to that effect. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. The second appeal is dismissed.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants prays for continuation of the interim order for a further period of eight weeks.

The learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer.

In view of the aforesaid factual position, I do not find any reason to continue the interim order. The prayer is rejected. Judge.

Lanjewar