Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Thimakka Since Deceased By Lrs – Appellant
Versus
Venkataramanappa Since Deceased By Lrs – Respondent
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dated 12th October, 2020 in Writ Petition No. 61662 of 2016 by which the petition filed by the petitioner herein came to be rejected thereby affirming the order passed by the Executing Court in I.A. No. 10 in Execution Petition No. 20 of 2003 arising from the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in original suit No. 895 of 1995.
3. We have heard Mr. Devadatt Kamat, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Ashwin V. Kotemath, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners herein shall be referred to as the original defendants and the respondents herein shall be referred to as the original plaintiffs.
5. It appears from the materials on record that the plaintiffs instituted a suit for specific performance of contract based on an agreement of sale dated 28th June, 1994.
6. The total sale consideration fixed in the agreement of sale is Rs.3,40,000/-. It is the case of the plaintiffs that at the time of execution of the agreement of sale an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- was paid towards ea
The legality of a High Court's order affirming an ex-parte decree for specific performance is upheld, with pending disputes to be resolved by lower courts.
The court ruled that the High Court improperly exercised its discretion in condoning a 917-day delay in filing an appeal against a decree for specific performance.
The court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support claims and the need for reasonable cause when seeking to condone significant delays in legal proceedings.
The decree for specific performance remains executable despite delays in deposit of balance sale consideration, provided no rescission is sought by judgment debtors.
The court emphasized the necessity of flexibility under the Specific Relief Act to uphold substantial justice while interpreting time limits for fulfilling contractual obligations.
Second appeal lies to High Court if High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved.
Ex-parte judgment – Ex-parte judgment should show the application of minimum requirement of consideration of the pleadings, issues, evidence and the relief sought for rendering such judgment - Litiga....
Failure to pay the balance sale consideration within the set time does not abandon the contract; the court retains discretion to extend payment timelines under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
