KOKILABEN SHAILESHKUMAR SHAH Vs. KANTILAL PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, Mr. Mehul Suresh Shah, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents - original defendants raised two pivotal issues as regards the maintainability of the present appeal.

(2.) Mr. Shah pointed out that the original plaintiffs first instituted a suit for injunction against the defendants as the original plaintiffs had an apprehension that the defendants were likely to dispose of the suit-properties and thereby defeat their claim under the agreement to sell. Mr. Shah further pointed out that after the institution of the suit for injunction, a second suit came to be filed for specific performance of contract. Thus, according to Mr. Shah, two suits came to be institued. It is pointed out that although both the suits came to be consolidated, yet the Court below framed two sets of issues i.e. seperate issues in both the suits. However, the evidence led was common. It is pointed out that in the Regular Civil Suit No.399 of 1990 for injunction, the following issues at Exh.38 were framed.

(3.) The aforesaid issues at Exh.38 came to be answered as under:-