MUSTAQ Vs. SAYYADAHMEDALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 30-9-2015, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal, whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge has allowed the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and has permitted him to produce a notarised attested copy of agreement of sale dated 18-1-2012, the petitioner-Mrs. Mistaq, has approached this Court.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner-Mr. Mustaq, along with one Mr. Nagappa, filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant, Mr. Sayyaaahmedali alias Babu. According to the petitioner, they had entered into" an agreement of sale on 18-2-2012, with the respondent/defendant. Out of the consideration of Rs. 6,75,000/- they had paid Rs. 4,00,000/- to the respondent/defendant. It was agreed that the absolute sale deed would be executed on or before 25-4-2012, after the remaining balance amount was paid to the defendant. But despite the request made by the petitioner, and despite his willingness to pay the balance amount to the defendant, the defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed. Hence, the suit for specific performance.

(3.) The defendant-respondent field his written statement. In the written statement, he took a categorical stand that even in his reply to the legal notice sent by the petitioner, he had pleaded that he had executed an agreement to sell on 18-1-2012, with one Mohammad Wasim Neeralagi and Mr. Nagappa. He had agreed to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 27,50,000/-. Out of the said amount, he had received Rs. 1,00,000/-. He therefore challenged the veracity of the alleged agreement to sale dated 18-2-2012, and he denied the other averments made in the plaint.