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

Bombay HC13 Nov 2024CRA/26/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suit for specific performance of a 1996 agreement; plaintiff relied on a purported second notice dated 02.04.2003 to bring the 2003 suit within limitation. The court heard counsel on the Order VII Rule 11 rejection and consequential amendment challenge and adjourned the matters to encourage amicable settlement.

What the court decided

AI extract

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 the court decided

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 the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kalpana Parshuram Argile vs Parshuraam Dashrath Argile (Deceased)

Khorshed Burjis Vesuna vs Perviz Jehangirji Engineer (Deceased)

Carlos Joseph Noronha vs Late Crispina Noronha (Deceased)

Ashwani Kumar Alias Ashwani Kumar Sharma vs Sohan Lal Sharma Alias Sohan Sharma (Deceased)

Anushka Anup Mirlekar Nee Aparna Prakash Vagal vs Prakash Dattatray Vagal

Bhupendra Dalal Vs the Custodian