CHANDRAKANT KANTILAL BHATT Vs. JANAKARAY KANTILAL BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the original defendant and is directed against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. The dispute is between three real brothers. Two brothers - original plaintiffs approached the Trial Court, praying for specific performance of a registered agreement to sell, against the defendant - third brother. The 8th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar decreed the Regular Civil Suit No.610 of 2004 vide judgment and decree dated 11.01.2008.

(2.) Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the appellant - original defendant has submitted that, the Trial Court fell in error by entertaining the suit without verifying as to whether the summons of the Court was served on the defendant, in accordance with law. It is submitted that the service of the summons was not made in accordance with law and therefore, no decree could have been passed against the present appellant. It is submitted that this was pointed out to the District Court, however the District Court has failed to consider this aspect and it has mechanically confirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court. It is submitted that, thus substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court pertaining to equity and compliance of principles of natural justice, for which this appeal be entertained. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in the cases of :- (i) Sushil Kumar Sabharwal versus Gurpreet Singh reported in AIR 2002 SC 2370 and (ii) Prabin Ram Phukan versus State of Assam reported in (2015) 3 SCC 605. It is submitted that this appeal be entertained.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Zalak B. Pipalia, learned advocate for the respondents - original plaintiffs has submitted that, both the Courts below have found that, there was no procedural irregularity with regard to service of summons and after considering the material on record, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that, on merits the suit is required to be decreed. It is submitted that no interference be made by this Court in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. It is submitted that no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. It is submitted that, this appeal be dismissed.