The High Court at Aurangabad dismissed a review application regarding an oral agreement in a property suit. The judge clarified that Section 53-A applies if agreement conditions are met and rejected review and delay condonation without a need for notice.
Review application and application for condonation of delay are rejected; no notice to be issued.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CA No. 3797/17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
903 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3797 OF 2017 IN RAST/2842/2017 IN WP/9872/2014
TARABAI TIKAMDAS NEVE VERSUS RAKESH SUDHAKAR NEVE
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V.B. Patil AGP for Respondent/State : Mrs. P.V. Diggikar
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATED : June 15, 2017.
ORDER :
. The application is filed for review of the oral judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 9872/2014 and also for condonation of delay caused in filing the review application. The person who is seeking condonation of delay is required to show to the Court that there is atleast some case in the matter. In view of this circumstance, the learned counsel for the applicant was asked to show that there is something in the matter to argue.
CA No. 3797/17
2
Act' for short) cannot be used. The learned counsel submits that due to the observations made by this Court that if there is agreement of sale, the provisions of section 53-A of the Act can be used, the Trial Court may go with the presumption that the relief can be given under section 53-A of the Act. It can be said that this is misconception. Basically for getting that relief, the party is required to show that there was agreement as required under section 53-A of the Act and then other conditions are required to be satisfied. This Court holds that such clarification will be sufficient and there is no need to review the judgment when the suit is filed for relief of injunction on various ground and when the party is claiming to be in possession of the immovable property. There is nothing to argue in the main matter and for that, there will be no necessity to issue notice also in delay condonation application. The application stands rejected with aforesaid observations.
[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ssc/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the oral judgment requires review regarding the applicability of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act to an oral agreement.
Whether condonation of delay is required in the review application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
TARABAI TIKAMDAS NEVE
RAKESH SUDHAKAR NEVE
T.V. NALAWADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
