CHETANA SHANKAR MANAPURE Vs. BANDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Revision Applications are filed by some of the original defendants against common order dated 01/07/2019, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhandara, whereby two applications filed by them under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Exhs.83 and 101), were rejected.

(2.) The respondent No.1 in both the Revision Applications (original plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction bearing Special Civil Suit No.3/2019, before the Court below against the revision applicants in these two Revision Applications and other defendants totaling 29 defendants. The suit properties are agricultural lands in respect of which the respondent No.1 claims to have entered into an agreement for sale and purchase. It is the case of respondent No.1 that an agreement dated 30/06/2016, was executed by original defendant Nos.

(3.) ,10, 11 and 19 in favour of respondent No.1, agreeing to sell the property for valuable consideration. It was claimed by respondent No.1 that earnest money of Rs.11,00,000/- by way of four cheques was paid by him to the said original defendant Nos. 3, 10, 11 and 19 and that the agreement was specifically signed only by the said four defendants only. It was the case of respondent No.1 that in stead of complying with the requirements of the said agreement, original defendant Nos. 3, 10, 11 and 19 sold the property to a third person, thereby cheating the respondent No.1, despite the fact that the respondent No.1 was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On this basis, the respondent No.1 has filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance and permanent injunction. 3. In the aforesaid suit, the revision applicants filed Applications at Exhs.83 and 101, seeking rejection of the plaint as against them, primarily on the ground that even as per the pleadings of the respondent No.1 and agreement dated 30/06/2016, revision applicants were not even parties to the agreement and, therefore, there was no question of the suit for specific performance proceeding against them. These Applications were opposed on behalf of respondent No.1.