- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MFA NO.104568/2018 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
1A.
SANJAY BALASAHEB BHOSALE,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHINCHALI-591217,
TAL: RAIBAG.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.
SMT.KALAVATI
W/O. APPASAHEB SALUNKE,
AGE: 53 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND H.H. WORK,
R/O: CHINCHALI-591217,
TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
1B. SMT.SHOBHA
D/O. BALASAHEB BHOSALE,
AGE: 43 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND H.H. WORK,
R/O: CHINCHALI-591217,
TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
1C. KUMARI JYOTI
D/O. SANJAY BHOSALE,
AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: CHINCHALI-591217,
TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS.
(BY SMT. GEETHA K M AND P B PAWAR, ADVOCATES.)
- 2 -
AND:
SADASHIV SAKHARAM POL,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHINCHALI-591217,
TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
…RESPONDENT.
(BY SHRI DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE.)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 43 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 104 OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 01.12.2016, PASSED IN CIVIL MISC. NO.4/2014 BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RAIBAG, REJECTING THE
PETITION, ETC.,.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
This appeal is preferred by the L.Rs., of original
defendant aggrieved by rejection of Civil Miscellaneous
Petition No.4/2014 filed under Order 9 rule 13 of CPC.
2.
The parties shall be referred as per their
status before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
3.1
It is the case of the appellant that the original
defendant was the original owner of suit schedule
- 3 -
property. The plaintiff in the original suit who is the
respondent in the present appeal filed a suit for the relief
of specific performance of contract against the original
defendant to enforce the contract dated 30.5.2012
wherein a sale agreement came to be executed by the
original defendant in favour of plaintiff for a total sale
consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-. The original defendant
had accepted Rs.8,50,000/- as earnest money as part of
sale consideration amount which was acknowledged by
issuing a receipt affixing his signature in favour of the
plaintiff. The balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was to be
paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The time
was fixed for sale transaction on or before 30.5.2013
which was not done as on the date. The defendant went
on postponing the execution and performance of contract
on one or the other reason. Left with no other alternative
remedy, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice through his
counsel on 15.6.2013 calling upon the original defendant
to execute the registered sale deed pursuant to the
agreement of sale. But since the defendant refused to
receive the said notice and the plaintiff being willing and
ready to perform his part of contract by paying the
- 4 -
balance sale consideration amount, got filed a suit for
specific performance of agreement of sale executed by
the defendant in his favour.
3.2
On service of summons, since the defendant
remained absent, the trial Court placed him ex-parte and
the matter was posted for evidence and after recording
the evidence, the trial Court after detailed analysis and
appreciation
of
material
evidence
both
oral
and
documentary, decreed the suit of plaintiff and directed
the defendant to execute the registered sale deed in
pursuance to the registered sale agreement dated
30.5.2012 by receiving the balance sale consideration
amount within a period of two months from the date of
order. The said judgment came to be rendered on
28.9.2013.
3.3
Pursuance to the judgment and decree passed
in favour of the plaintiff, he filed execution petition
bearing E.P.No.36/2013 on 4.1.2014 in which a Court
commissioner came to be appointed and the sale deed
came
to
be
executed
by
appointing
the
Court
commissioner. As the defendant/J.Dr. remained absent
- 5 -
and
was
placed
exparte
even
in
the
execution
proceedings,
the
balance
sale
consideration
of
Rs.1,50,000/- came to be deposited by the plaintiff
before the executing Court. Thereafter possession was
taken over by the plaintiff and the plaintiff presently is in
possession of the land in question.
3.4
As the original defendant was placed exparte
in the original suit, a Civil Miscellaneous Petition
No.4/2014 came to be filed on 5.2.2014 to set aside the
order placing the defendant exparte and consequently to
set aside the judgment and decree passed against the
original defendant by placing him exparte. In the said
miscellaneous petition the defendant who was the
plaintiff before the trial Court filed his detailed statement
of objection and brought to the notice of the Court that
he has already executed the judgment and decree passed
in O.S.No.113/2013 and has taken possession of the land
in question by paying the balance sale consideration
amount and after recording evidence in the said
miscellaneous petition, the Civil Court dismissed the
miscellaneous
petition
preferred
by
the
original
- 6 -
defendant. Aggrieved by the rejection of the said
miscellaneous petition filed by the original defendant and
his legal representatives, the present appeal is filed.
4.
Heard the learned counsel S
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.