SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Kar) 242

A.M.FAROOQ, B.S.PATIL
SARASWATHAMMA – Appellant
Versus
H. SHARAD SHRIKANDE – Respondent


Advocates:
INDU R.RAJ, L.M.Chidanandaiah, Mohammed Nasiruddin, S.SHEKHAR SHETTY

B. S. PATIL, J.

( 1 ) THERE is delay of 40 days in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay is taken up along with the main matter.

( 2 ) THE respondents 1 and 2 have filed objections to the IA for condonation of delay and has strongly objected for the same. We have considered the reasons assigned by the appellant in the affidavit filed by her in support of the prayer for condonation of delay. We are of the view that sufficient cause is made out and the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned in the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, application I. A. I of 2002 is allowed and delay of 40 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The matter is heard for final hearing with the consent of the parties.

( 3 ) SUIT for specific performance of the contract filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein has been decreed. The defendants 1 and 2 (appellant and respondent 3 in this appeal respectively) are directed to execute registered sale deed in respect of the suit property and to deliver vacant possession of the same in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant 1 being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree has filed this regular first appeal. The partie










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top