Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J
P.C.Doraisamy – Appellant
Versus
Sellammal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. subsequent developments on land acquisition deemed irrelevant. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute over deposit time requirements. (Para 4) |
| 3. no legal error found in trial court's rejection. (Para 5) |
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 169 of 1993 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Court, Erode, filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 16.02.1992. The suit was decreed on 15.11.1996. It is the case of the petitioners that they had filed an application under Section 28(3) of the Specific Relief Act seeking extension of time for deposit of the balance sale consideration. Pending the said application, the Petitioners filed I.A. No. 3 of 2025 seeking permission to file an additional affidavit in the pending Section 28(3) application to bring certain subsequent developments to the notice of the Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a portion of the suit property was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India and that the respondent had received compensation without executing the sal
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
