IMPORTANT POINT
Appellate court must consider all submissions, evidence and settled legal principles while adjudicating on first appeal.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) We have perused the Office Report dated 10.10.2014. It discloses that despite last opportunity granted to the respondent, he has not filed any counter affidavit till date. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the respondent. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits.

2) Leave granted.

3) This is a civil appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment/decree dated 21.03.2013 passed by the single Judge of the High Court of M. P., Indore Bench in First Appeal No. 173 of 1999, which in turn arises out of the judgment and decree dated 27.02.1999 passed by the second Additional District Judge, Mandsaur in Civil Suit No. 36A/97.

4) In order to appreciate the short issue involved in this appeal, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts:

5) The appellant (plaintiff) filed a civil suit in the Court of second Additional District Judge, Mandsore being Civil Suit no. 36A/97 against the respondent (defendant) for specific performance of the contract for purchase of house bearing no. 9, situated at Madhavganj Mandsaur (herein after referred to as "the suit house”). According to the appellant, the respondent was the owner of the suit house and he entered into a written agreement dated 05.01.1992 with the appellant to sell the suit house to the appellant for a total sum of Rs.1,48,000/-. It was alleged in the plaint that the appellant, in terms of the agreement, offered/tendered Rs.9,989/-to the respondent towards part payment of the sale consideration, but he declined to accept the amount and avoided to perform his part of the agreement. This led to the serving of notice by the appellant to the respondent calling upon him to perform his part of the agreement and execute the sale deed of the suit house in the appellant’s favour. Since the respondent failed to ensure compliance of the legal notice, the appellant filed the aforementioned civil suit against the respondent seeking specific performance of the agreement in question. It was alleged that the appellant was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but it was respondent who failed to perform his part and hence this suit.

6) The respondent filed the written statement denying allegations made in the plaint. According to the respondent, there was no concluded agreement between the parties and in any event, the appellant having failed to perform his obligations, which were agreed upon in the alleged agreement, he was not entitled to seek enforcement of such agreement against the respondent in relation to the suit house.

7) Thereafter, the trial Court framed the issues. Parties then adduced evidence in support of their pleadings. The trial Court vide its judgment/decree dismissed the suit and declined to grant any relief to the appellant. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment/decree, the appellant filed First Appeal No. 173 of 1999 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the High Court of M.P. at Indore Bench.

8) The learned Single Judge, by impugned judgment, dismissed the first appeal filed by the appellant and in consequence confirmed the judgment/decree passed by the trial court, which had dismissed appellant's civil suit. It is against this confirmation of the dismissal of the suit by the High Court, the appellant felt aggrieved and filed this appeal.

9) Learned Counsel for the appellant while assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment contended that the High Court without adverting to all the factual details and various grounds raised in the first appeal, disposed of the same in a cryptic manner. According to learned counsel, the High Court neither dealt with any issue nor appreciated the ocular and documentary evidence adduced by the parties nor examined the legal principles applicable to the issues arising in the case and nor rendered its findings on any contentious issues on which the appellant was non suited by the trial court th