MARIGOUDA CHANABASAPPA MARIGOUDAR Vs. SATTYAPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing on both sides, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) This second appeal is preferred by the defendant in O.S. No. 1/99, assailing the order passed on I.A. No. 4, filed under Order XLI Rule 3 -A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) r/w Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, dated 25/04/2015 by the learned Prl. District Judge, Belagavi, in R.A. No. 18/2008.

(3.) The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant herein was the defendant in O.S. No. 1/1999, which is a suit filed by the original plaintiff since deceased and now represented by his Legal Representatives, seeking the relief of specific performance of contract passed on agreement of sale dated 06/01/1996. In that suit, the defendant had appeared through counsel and had filed his written statement. Issues were framed in the said suit. The plaintiff had examined himself as P.W.1 and his younger brother as P.W.2. Four documents were marked on behalf of the plaintiff as Exs.P.1 to P.4. But the defendant did not let in his evidence. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for arguments by the trial Court and by judgment and decree dated 10/04/2001, the suit was decreed and relief of specific performance of contract was granted against the defendant.