NAMDEV Vs. PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff assailing the order dtd. 27/10/2017 passed on I.A.No.VI in O.S. No.210/2014 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Chikkodi wherein the application of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 read with Sec. 151 of CPC seeking to issue summons to Sri T.S. Padekar, Advocate and notary was allowed.

(2.) Heard Sri Ramesh I. Zirali, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondents. Perused the material on record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of contract which was executed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 in respect of agricultural land bearing Rs. No.251 situated at Kartaga village for sale consideration of Rs.16,00,000.00. The defendants have received earnest money of Rs.15,00,000.00 on 15/1/2013 and balance consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. It is submitted that the defendants have failed to execute the sale deed hence filed a suit for specific performance of contract. The plaintiff commenced his evidence by filing an affidavit by way of examination-in- chief, the respondent-defendant instead of cross- examining the petitioner, have filed an I.A.No.VI under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking to summon the witness. The petitioner has filed detailed objections to the said I.A. despite the objections, the trial Court has allowed the said application without examining the pleadings and material on record. It is further submitted that the filing of an application by the respondents is an attempt to protract the proceedings and the trial Court ought to have rejected the said application.