M.TULASIDAS Vs. M.K.GOWTHAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the dismissal order dtd. 25/1/2014 passed in Misc.No.100/2010 filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, on the file of the V Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-13).

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the appellant/defendant is that the respondents/plaintiffs had filed a suit stating that the defendant executed the agreement of sale and agreed to sell the property bearing No.244, 6thMain, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore measuring east to west 60 ft. and north to south 40 ft. consisting of construction in the said property for sale consideration of Rs.2,25,00,000.00 and on the date of agreement an amount of Rs.1,95,00,000.00 was paid. The time for completion of the sale deed was agreed for 14 months. The plaintiffs also agreed to clear the loan to ICICI Bank payable by the defendant in respect of the property in question. It is also claimed by the plaintiffs that ground floor rear portion of the property has been handed over and also claims that agreed to deliver front portion ground floor, I floor and II floor. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.7127/2008 for the relief of specific performance and notice was served on the appellant/defendant and he did not file the written statement when the case was set down for filing of written statement. Later, the case was posted for evidence of the witnesses and P.W.1 was examined, but was not cross-examined and the Trial Court heard the matter and passed the judgment and decree. However, it is contended that in the suit, the learned counsel filed the memo for retirement and the same was not accepted.