Sou. Deepa Chandrashekar Shetty, Thr. P.O.A. Ashok Bhaskar Shetty (Pet. NO.1 and 2) v. Milind Jaykumar Kole

Bombay HC6 Aug 2024CRA/26/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suit for specific performance of a 1996 agreement; challenge to rejection of Order VII Rule 11 application and to amendment under Order VI Rule 17, turning on a purported second notice dated 02.04.2003 relied on to bring suit within limitation. Court heard counsel, encouraged amicable settlement, adjourned to 28 March 2024, continuing ad-interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim relief granted earlier, if any, to continue; matter stood over to 28.03.2024.

Sou. Deepa Chandrashekar Shetty, Thr. P.O.A. Ashok… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

5.CRA.26.2024+.doc

¶2

HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.26 OF 2024

¶6

Deepa Chandrashekar Shetty and Anr. .. Applicant Versus Milind Jaykumar Kole .. Respondent

¶7

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.432 OF 2024

¶8

Deepa Chandrashekar Shetty and Anr. .. Petitioners Versus

¶9

Milind Jaykumar Kole .. Respondent

¶10

Mr. Ketan A. Chothani a/w. Mr. Prasad L. Gajbhiye and N. B. Patil, Advocates for Applicant in Civil Revision Application No.26 / 2024 and for Petitioner in Writ Petition No.432 / 2024.

¶11

Mr. Anilkumar Patil, Advocate for Respondent.

¶12

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : MARCH 05, 2024

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1. Heard Mr. Chothani, learned Advocate for Applicant in Civil Revision Application No.26 of 2024 and for Petitioner in Writ Petition No.432 of 2024 and Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent in both matters.

¶15

2. With the able assistance of Mr. Chothani, I have perused the fundamental facts in the present case. There is a Civil Revision Application as also Writ Petition before me. In one proceeding, rejection of Application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code,1908 (for short ‘ CPC ’) is under challenge whereas in

¶16

1 of 3

¶17

5.CRA.26.2024+.doc

¶18

the second proceeding by virtue of rejection of that application, amendment allowed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is under challenge.

¶19

3. Four fundamental dates are required to be considered in the present proceedings.

¶20

3.1. 18.01.1996, is the original Agreement between Plaintiff and Defendants which is subject matter of the suit filed in the year 2005 being Special Civil Suit No.251 of 2005. Under this Agreement, an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- was paid and the entire transaction was to be completed within a period of 11 months. Suit is for specific performance.

¶21

3.2. The next date is 02.09.1999, when the Plaintiff issued a notice to the original Defendant to complete the transaction. This notice refers to earlier notice also.

¶22

3.3. The next date of which there is contentious argument from both sides is the purported second notice dated 02.04.2003. It is this notice which is the probable bone of contention of the submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.

¶23

3.4. The suit is instituted on 03.05.2003 and in order to bring it within limitation this purported second notice dated 02.04.2003 is being relied upon by the Plaintiff.

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

5.CRA.26.2024+.doc

¶26

4. In view of the above, I have impressed upon both the parties to consider an amicable compromise and settlement in the present matter, undoubtedly without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties in view of the aforesaid dates and events.

¶27

5. I am hopeful that Mr. Chothani and Mr. Patil, learned Advocates for respective parties both shall endevour to do their best to resolve the present dispute between the parties and arrive at an amicable resolution and settlement.

¶28

6. Needless to state that any resolution arrived at can put an end to the long standing lis between the parties.

¶29

7. Stand over to 28^th March, 2024 at 02.30 p.m .

¶30

8. In the meanwhile, ad-interim relief granted earlier, if any, to

¶31

continue.

¶32

H. H. SAWANT

¶33

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶34

Digitally signed by HARSHADA HARSHADA HANUMANT HANUMANT SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2024.03.05 18:57:19 +0530

¶35

3 of 3

Sou. Deepa Chandrashekar Shetty, Thr. P.O.A. Ashok Bhaskar Shetty (Pet. NO.1 and 2) v. Milind Jaykumar Kole

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sou. Deepa Chandrashekar Shetty, Thr. P.O.A. Ashok Bhaskar Shetty (Pet. NO.1 and 2) v. Milind Jaykumar Kole

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shonali Dabrai vs Ajay Amarchand Chhabria and 14 Ors.

Kintu Kishore Bajaj vs Kishore Bhajandas Bajaj (Deceased)

Foram Rasbihari Desai Alias Foram Desai A.K.A. Foram Payak vs Sharmela Remesh Iyer

Ramila Kantilal Dedhia vs Kantilal Virji Dedhia Alias Kantilala Maganlal Dedhia (Deceased)

Ramila Kantilal Dedhia vs Kantilal Virji Dedhia Alias Kantilala Maganlal Dedhia (Deceased)

Jayesh Padamshi Gogri vs Javerben Padamshi Gogri Alias Javerben P. Gogri Alias Zaverben Padmasinha Gogari (Deceased)