NAYNABEN CHAMPAKLAL MORAKHIYA Vs. DEEPA PRADIP SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Civil Revision Application preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["CPC" for short] seeks to challenge legality and validity of an Order dated 3rd November 2017 passed by the learned City Civil & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad on an Application Exh. 68 made in Execution Petition No. 466 of 2017, whereby, the objections raised by the applicant- original defendant/judgment debtor under Section 47 of the Code have been rejected by the Court below.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the present application are that the applicant, who occupies a residential property, being Flat No. 5, Simandhar Royale, Ahmedabad with her family since 2010, was confronted with the proceedings in the form of a Civil Suit instituted by the respondents herein, which ultimately came to be settled through mediation on 1st February 2017, whereby, the applicant was required to pay a sum of Rs. 73 lakhs as sale consideration of the suit property and upon payment of such amount, it was made incumbent upon the respondent to execute the sale deed in favour of the applicant. As the respondent had obtained financial assistance from Kalupur Commercial Coop Bank, the amount aforestated was to be paid either to the respondents or to the said Bank directly by the applicant, and in such eventuality, the respondent was under obligation to supply all the documents in relation to the suit property to the applicant to enable her to obtain financial loan from her Bankers. As per the terms of settlement, the suit came to be decreed by an order dated 13th February 2017, whereby, the applicant has to got executed, the sale deed on or before 30th April 2017, otherwise the possession of the suit property was required to be handed over to the respondent. In pursuance thereof, the applicant through her son applied to HDFC Bank for grant of Housing Loan which came to be approved vide communication dated 28th February 2017, however, the respondent failed to provide requisite documents of the suit property within the reasonable time, over and above, the respondent also failed to supply "No Objection Certificate" from the Society; as was requested by the applicant, resulting into lapse of loan amount sanctioned to the applicant.

(3.) Heard learned advocates for the respective sides.