9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1842X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as set up the case that he came to know of the passing of the decree only several months thereafter. The matter arises from a suit for specific performance. It may be true that there is a case for the respondent that the appellant has actually let out the building on rent. The appellant s case is that this is the appellant s residential house and the matter is a loan transaction. Specific relief is undoubtedly a discretionary relief - the interest of justice demands that subject to putting the appellant on terms, an opportunity should be given to the appellant to contest the case and the case must be directed to be disposed of within the time limit. The appellant will deposit a sum of ₹ 67,400/- within a period of one month fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. On 02.07.2014, the petitioner filed an application. Thereafter, the Suit came to be transferred to another Court, and thereafter, without any notice to the petitioner, the Suit came to be decreed. 5. Counsel for the appellant would submit that the property is the residential property. It is much more valuable than the amount shown in the agreement. The transaction was essentially a loan transaction and opportunity must be given to contest the matter on merits. 6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the decree holder would submit that ample opportunity was given to the appellant, and in spite of the same, he has not contested the matter. Appellant has another residential building. The building in question was let out on rent. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to reveal that the plaintiff was present in person. The plaintiff has filed his proof affidavit. It was decided to proceed against the appellant ex parte. There is, however, a reference to the application to engage an advocate by the appellant. The case stood posted for ex parte argument on 08.08.2014. As parties were not present on the said day, the case was posted to 15.09.2014. However, on 12.09.2014, the case stood transferred to another Court. No intimation was given under Rule 89A to the appellant. 11. The further case of the appellant is that he came to know from the plaintiff that the case was fixed for judgement on 17.11.2015. He has alleged that he contacted his counsel but he did not get a satisfactory reply. He also has a ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within the time limit. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order subject to the following conditions: (a) The appellant will deposit a sum of ₹ 67,400/- (₹ 57,400/- towards stamp duty paid by the respondent + ₹ 10,000/- towards registration expenses etc.) within a period of one month from today in the Execution Court. (b) The appellant will further deposit a sum of ₹ 50,000/- as costs to be paid to the respondents. This amount will also be deposited in the Execution Court within a period of one month from today. Upon depositing the aforesaid amounts, it will be open to the respondent to withdraw the same and the sale deed will stand set aside. The respondent can also withdraw the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
