IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
Shamrao Piraji Kadam - Appellant
Versus
Prakash Shivaji Chavan & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 4010 of 2022
Decided On : 30-05-2022
Fraud - Specific Performance of Contract - Notarized Agreement - Delay Condonation - Criminal Action - Service of Summons - Writ Petition - Article 226 & 227 - [Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 10, Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 17, Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5]
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner filed a Writ Petition to challenge the Judgment & Order passed by the District Judge, seeking condonation of delay in filing a substantive First appeal. The suit for specific performance of a contract was filed against the Petitioner, who denied knowledge of the agreement and alleged fraud by the Respondents. The exparte decree was passed against the Petitioner, leading to the filing of the appeal and the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Petitioner had adequate reasons for seeking condonation of delay and that the impugned order rejecting the application was unsustainable. The Court also noted the fraudulent service of summons and the criminal action filed against the Respondents. The Writ Petition was allowed, quashing the judgment and order and allowing the Petitioner's application.
Issues: Condonation of delay, Fraudulent service of summons, Jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the reasons for delay were adequate, the service of summons was fraudulent, and the Writ Petition was maintainable under Article 226 & 227.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, quashing the judgment and order and allowing the Petitioner's application.
JUDGMENT
Milind N. Jadhav, J. - Heard.
2. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition to challenge the Judgment & Order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the learned District Judge - 6, Sangli in Misc. Civil application No. 213 of 2017. The Petitioner filed application seeking condonation of delay of 30 months and 14 days in filing a substantive First appeal before the learned appellate Court. The date of exparte judgment & decree in Special Civil Suit No. 188 of 2013 is 05.03.2015. The Petitioner filed the First appeal for setting aside the aforementioned exparte decree on 21.09.2017. along with First appeal, he filed Misc. Civil application No. 213 of 2017 seeking condonation of delay on the ground that a fraud was committed on the Petitioner and the Petitioner came to know about the passing of exparte decree immediately before filing the First appeal.
3. The relevant facts which are necessary for deciding the present Writ Petition are as follows:-
3.1. On 22.11.2013 Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance of a contract dated 14.08.2013 against the Petitioner (Defendant No. 1). Respondent No. 3 (Defendant No.2) is the wife of the Petitioner, which the Petitioner denies. according to the Petitioner, his wife has expired long back. The summons in the aforementioned Suit No. 188 of 2013 were served by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Plaintiffs) on the Petitioner (Defendant No. 1) and Respondent No. 3 (Defendant No. 2) on an address at Village Wanleswadi. The Petitioner contends that he does not reside or has any house at this village. The Petitioner all along has been residing in Pune.
3.2. The subject matter of this suit was specific performance of agreement of sale of suit property dated 14.08.2013 between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 on one hand and the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the other hand. The Petitioner denies knowledge of this agreement and also states that he does not know Respondent Nos. 1 and 2; further he has not executed any such agreement. The agreement is notarized by a Notary Public at Sangli. according to the Petitioner, Respondent No. 3 whom he does not know or have ever met in his life has been set up as his wife by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the three Respondents herein have colluded and conspired with each other and committed a massive fraud to usurp the suit property described in paragraph 2 of the petition at Wanleswadi. The Petitioner is a retired executive engineer from the government department; he resides in Pune with his two sons after his retirement in 1997 and is the owner of two immovable properties / land parcels situated at Wanleswadi within the geographical limits of Sangli Miraj and Kupwad Municipal Corporation being Gut No. 35/a/a/1/1/B/1/3 admeasuring 284.90 m2. and Gut No. 35/a/a/1/1/B/1/4 admeasuring 282.04 m2. In 2015 the Petitioner decided to dispose of the aforementioned two properties and executed a development agreement dated 03.03.2015 in favour of G.P. Developers, Sangli along with power of attorney dated 03.03.2015. The developers submitted a building plan on 08.07.2015; sanction was obtained from the Corporation and at present there is a multi-stored building standing on the said plots. During the construction, Petitioner executed a registered sale deed dated 07.12.2015 for consideration of Rs. 87,75,000/- in respect of both the said plots and the construction thereupon. as on date 80% of the sanctioned construction of the aforesaid plots has been completed according to the Petitioner.
3.3. according to the Petitioner sometime in the month of august 2017 he paid a visit to Sangli during which time he learnt that a suit for specific performance was filed against him by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Petitioner appointed an advocate to obtain the copy of the suit proceedings and came to know that Respondent No. 3 was shown as his wife in the suit proceedings; there was a notarized agreement of sale in respect of the suit property dated 14.08.2013;
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.