Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J
Santosh S/o Baburao Gayakwad – Appellant
Versus
Punit Pramod Grover – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner is challenging the legality of impugned Order dated 26.08.2024 below Ex.141 passed by the Trial Court, in Spl. C.S. No. 626/2016 between Santosh Vs. Punit and others, thereby allowed the application filed by respondents under Order 26 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking issuance of commission to examine authenticity of signatures of defendants on agreement to sell dated 28.06.2016.
3. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the original defendants i.e. Shri Punit Grover and Smt. Rohini Punit Grover entered into an agreement to sell, their immovable property for valuable consideration of Rs.26,51,000/- to petitioner and out of total agreed sale consideration, a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs was paid by petitioner by cash and a sum of Rs.51,000/- was paid by petitioner by Cheque dated 15.07.2016 to the respondents and it was agreed that balance sale consideration would be paid by petitioner to the respondents at the time of execution and registration of the Sale Deed.
4. Even after repeated demand of the petitioner, the respondents failed
The principle of res judicata applies to subsequent applications in the same proceedings, preventing re-litigation of issues already decided.
The principles of res judicata apply to subsequent applications in the same proceedings, preventing re-agitation of previously decided matters without new evidence.
High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave derelictio....
Point of Law : Suit for specific performance and permanent injunction – Agreement of Sale - non mentioning of the correct survey number in the agreement of sale cannot be held to be due to inadverten....
The main legal point established is that subsequent applications should not be allowed without proper grounds after an earlier application on the same matter has been dismissed, as it leads to unjust....
Expert evidence should not displace substantive evidence in evaluating contractual disputes.
The repeated failure to avail opportunities granted by the court to lead evidence can amount to an abuse of process of law and delay the final adjudication of a suit.
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
