ANIGLASE Vs. RAMALATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This A.F.A. has been filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in A.S. No. 182 of 1994 of this Court. At the time of filing the A.F.A. decree in A.S. No. 182 of 1994 was not produced. The office directed the appellant to produce the decree. But the appellant had not applied for copy of the decree and took up the contention that the production of the decree is not necessary. The office noted the decision reported in Damodaran v. Muraleekrishnan, 2000(3) KLT 595, wherein it has been said that production of copy of the decree is mandatory while filing such an appeal. When the matter came before the Division Bench, it took the view that the decision requires reconsideration. It is in the above circumstances that the A.F.A. has been referred to the Full Bench.

(2.) The appeal is filed under S.5(ii) of the High Court Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). S.5(ii) of the Act states thus:

(3.) So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the suit was filed for specific performance of Ext. A1 agreement for sale. The plaintiffs case is that the defendant executed Ext. A1 agreement in his favour agreeing to sell the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 12,000 and an advance amount of Rs. 8,000 was paid on the date of agreement. The period fixed for the execution of the sale deed was six months.