ORAL JUDGMENT: - This Second Appeal No. 244 of 1985 is directed against the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 389 of 1983 the learned District Judge, Nanded on 29th October, 1985. Learned District Judge, Nanded held that due to failure of the plaintiff to deposit the balance amount of the sale consideration within the time stipulated by the trial Court, the it, after the expiry of the given period automatically, stood dismissed. The med District Judge, Nanded further held that the appeal thus, became infructuous and is, therefore, disposed of accordingly, in the light of the matter, without disturbing the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

2. The facts, in short, may be summarised, as follows:

(a) The appellant, in the second appeal, was the plaintiff in Regular Civil it No. 270 of 1982 and one Mr. Mahadu S/o Kerba was the defendant in the suit. Defendant Mahadu Kerba died during the pendency of second appeal, in this court, and his legal heirs have been brought on record. The legal heirs of eased Mahadu/original defendant, are respondents in the second appeal. The parties, hereinafter, are referred to their status in Regular Civil Suit No. 270 1982, for convenience.

(b) The plaintiff had filed suit for specific performance of contract perpetual injunction, in respect of land Gat No. 136, admeasuring 4 Acres Gunthas, situated at village Dabhad, Taluka and District Nanded, against the defendant. After recording evidence, in the suit, the learned 2nd Joint Civil Jud Junior Division, Nanded decreed the suit by the judgment and decree passed 28th October, 1983. The trial Court, in the operative part of the judgment - Cls (1), ordered that the plaintiff should deposit the remaining amount of consideration Rs. 6,100/ - within three months from the date of the order and after depositing money, the defendant should execute the sale -deed in respect of the suit proper. In clause (II) the trial Court ordered that, in case of failure on the part of the, plaintiff to deposit the amount, as per the order Clause (I), within stipulated time the suit of specific performance of contract shall automatically stand dismissed, clause (III) the trial Court directed the plaintiff and defendant to bear equal expenses of registration of the sale deed. In case of failure, on the part of defendant to share the expenses, the plaintiff was conferred every right to record the same from the defendant. By clause (IV), the defendant was directed to execute the sale deed in respect of suit filed, within a month and in case of failure, on part of the defendant, it was directed to be executed through Court. As per cls (V), the plaintiff was permitted to recover the notice charges of Rs. 35/ - from defendant. Clause (VI) and (VII) of the operative part of the judgment/decree, trial Court restrained the defendant from causing obstruction in peaceful possession of the suit field of the plaintiff. By clause (VII), the defendant was to pay en costs of the suit to the plaintiff and was further directed to bear his own costs.

(c) Regular Civil Appeal No. 389 of 1983 was filed by the original defendant deceased Mahadu on 7th December, 1983, being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 270 1982. The plaintiff Hari filed an application at Exhibit -10 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 389 of 1983 on 9th February, 1984. In this application, Exhibit -10, was contended by the plaintiff that his elder brother was suffering from sickness. The entire family of the plaintiff and his brother was reeling under the sickness his brother. The plaintiff, therefore, could not deposit the balance of consideration amount, to the tune of Rs. 6,100/ - in pursuance of the decree passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 270 of 1982. The plaintiff, the application Exhibit -10, sought extension of 12 -13 days time, since s deposit was delayed by that time. Ultimately, prayer was made seeking permission of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document