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

2014 Supreme(Bom) 1062

T.V.NALAWADE
Kisanlal – Appellant
Versus
Harischandra – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:R.R. Mantri, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, P.F. Patni, Advocate.

Judgment :

1) The civil revision application is filed against the order made on Exhibit 40 which was filed in Special Civil Suit No.393 of 2007 pending before the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. The application was filed under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present applicants. It is their contention that the suit is not within limitation. The application is rejected by the trial Court. The trial Court has observed that from the contents of the paint and from the cause of action shown in the plaint, it cannot be said at present the suit is not within limitation. Both the sides are heard.

2) This Court has gone through the copy of plaint and also the written statement. This Court has also gone through the terms and conditions of so called agreement. The suit is filed for specific performance of contract against the present applicants. The agreement took place on 1-4-1991. The defendant’s predecessor agreed to sell area of 6000 square feet from CTS No.15854/A situated at Daudpura, Aurangabad. The property was not developed but promise was given to give plot facing to 80 feet D.P. road coming from Sahanoorwadi and proceed








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