-
by sayum
16 March 2026 3:12 PM
In this Case, Respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the contract against the appellant based on a agreement to sell an agricultural land - said suit was partly decreed exparte directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 61,000/ along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the appellant, while relief for specific performance of contract was denied. Respondent preferred first appeal before the High Court. The appellant was duly served and appeared in the said matter through the counsel. However, due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court - transferred from the High Court to the District Court - fresh notice was issued to the appellant, which was served through paper publication. The appellant did not appear and taken pretext of nonservice of the notice due to change of his address. The Adhoc District Judge, Amalner proceeding exparte, allowed the Regular Civil Appeal and granted decree of specific performance in favour of respondent Appellant filed second appeal before the High Court contending that the judgment passed by the Ist Appellate Court came to his knowledge only on 14.9.2017. There was a delay of 650 days in filing the appeal - explaining the delay due to lack of knowledge of the decision in the appeal, prayer for condonation was made. But Same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order approached the Apex court. Appellant produced the documents including voters list/Aadhar card showing his change of address from Amalner to Nashik. On the other hand, the respondent has produced the voter list of Amalner itself contending that the name of appellant is still existing.
Apex Court held that in such a situation without any enquiry and without arriving at a finding disbelieving the explanation of the appellant, the High Court was not justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. Judgement Set Aside – Appeal Allowed.
OCTOBER 8, 2021
YASHWANTRAO BHASKARRAO DESHMUKH...APPELLANT VERSUS RAGHUNATH KISAN SAINDANE
