SAHA DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS Vs. PARMILA M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This commercial appeal is filed under Sec. 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, challenging the order dtd. 29/7/2024 passed on I.A.No.II filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, 'CPC') in Com.O.S.No.245/2023 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru (for short 'the Trial Court').

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are:

(3.) Sri.K.R.Lingaraju, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner submits that the Trial Court has committed a grave error in appreciating the law and the facts of the case. It is submitted that the Trial Court has erroneously considered the respondent No.3 as a bona fide purchaser and dismissed I.A.No.II. The question with regard to respondent No.3 is a bona fide purchaser or purchaser pendente lite is required to be considered in a full-fledged trial. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has erred in stating that the agreement of sale is an unregistered document and does not have much credence in law, as according to Sec. 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, even an unregistered document can be admitted as evidence and used to corroborate a collateral transaction as such as in a suit for specific performance. It is also submitted that if the relief sought in the application is not granted, it would cause irreparable injury and hardship to the appellant and if the appellant succeeds in the suit and meantime the respondent No.3 further alienates the property, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal by granting the relief sought in I.A.No.II filed before the trial Court.