Kalimulla Ajimulla vs Shri. Hitesh S/O. Mathuradas Kariya — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Kalimulla Ajimulla vs Shri. Hitesh S/O. Mathuradas Kariya — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim directions only (appeal at notice stage): (i) notice issued to the respondent on the framed substantial question of law, returnable after Summer Vacation 2025, with service permitted by all permissible modes; (ii) execution proceedings allowed to continue only till the stage of submission of the draft sale-deed and to remain stayed thereafter; (iii) stay made conditional on the appellant not creating any third party interest over the suit property till further orders.

Issue for consideration

Whether the findings recorded by the learned Courts with respect to readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff are perverse, inasmuch as although the stipulated date for execution of the sale-deed was 24.06.2011, the finding that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract is recorded on the basis of a pay order dated 25.06.2012 and an affidavit showing his presence in the office of the Sub-registrar on the said date.

Court's answer

Notice to be issued to the respondent on the substantial question of law framed by the Court; notice made returnable after Summer Vacation 2025; learned counsel for the appellant permitted to serve the respondent by all permissible modes in addition to regular mode of service.

Ratio / Principle

Since notices were issued on a framed substantial question of law, the Court considered it expedient that the execution proceedings be allowed to continue only till the stage of submission of the draft sale-deed; after that stage the execution proceedings shall remain stayed.

Key takeaways

In view of the concurrent decrees against the appellant, the stay was granted subject to the condition that the appellant shall not create any third party interest over the suit property till further orders.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

INTERIM ORDER — Second Appeal — High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench — Second Appeal No. 49/2025, Kalimulla Ajimulla (dead) thr. Lrs. v. Hitesh s/o Mathuradas Kariya (Rohit W. Joshi, J.; dated 28/04/2025): Substantial question of law framed — whether the findings of the learned Courts below on the plaintiff's readiness and willingness are perverse, where the stipulated date for execution of the sale-deed was 24.06.2011 but the finding of readiness and willingness rests on a pay order dated 25.06.2012 and an affidavit showing the plaintiff's presence in the office of the Sub-registrar on that date; notice ordered to the respondent, returnable after Summer Vacation 2025, with service permitted by all permissible modes. In Civil Application (S) 186/2025, the Court directed that execution proceedings may continue only till the stage of submission of the draft sale-deed and shall remain stayed thereafter; noting concurrent decrees against the appellant, the stay was made subject to the condition that the appellant shall not create any third party interest over the suit property till further orders.

1 44 SA 49.25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

SECOND APPEAL NO. 49/2025

(Kalimulla Ajimulla (dead) thr. Lrs. Vs. Hitesh s/o Mathuradas Kariya)

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

Mr. U.K. Bisen, Advocate for appellant.

CORAM: ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED : 28/04/2025.

Heard.

Issue notice to the respondent on the following substantial questions of law:-

“Whether the findings recorded by learned Courts with respect to readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiff are perverse, inasmuch as although the stipulated date for execution of the sale-deed was 24.06.2011, finding that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract is recorded on the basis of pay order dated 25.06.2012 and affidavit showing his presence in the office of Sub-registrar on the said date?”

Notice is made returnable after Summer Vacation 2025. Learned counsel for appellant is permitted to serve respondent by all permissible modes, in addition to regular mode of service.

2 44 SA 49.25

Civil Application (S) 186/2025

Heard.

Since notices are issued by framing substantial question of law, it will be expedient that the execution proceedings are allowed to continue only till the stage of submission of draft sale-deed. After that stage, t he execution proceedings shall remain stayed. However, in view of the fact that there are concurrent decrees against the appellant, stay is granted subject to condition that the appellant shall not create any third party interest over the suit property till further orders.

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

Gohane

Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 02/05/2025 19:16:10