NAYAZ PASHA Vs. P. RAMAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the order 6/3/2020 passed on I.A.No.4 in Misc.No.625/2018 on the file of the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH No.44), Bengaluru, dismissing I.A.No.4 filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of CPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that no summons were served in O.S.No.5789/2012 which was filed for the relief of specific performance. The counsel would contend that the appellant disputes the signature with regard to service of summons but, not sent the document to the handwriting expert whether the signature belongs to him or not and with regard to the service of summons, the appellant only took the defence that signature not belongs to him. The Trial Court, having considered the material on record, when the evidence was led with regard to the delay is concerned and documents were marked, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that no satisfactory reasons are given to condone the delay. The counsel would vehemently contend that the appellant is ready to pay the cost and an opportunity may be given to the appellant to lead evidence to enable the Trial Court to consider the matter on merits.