SAIYAD MASROOR GHORI Vs. PURUSHOTTAM TAHLIRAM ROHIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issues raised in this Appeal are procedural irregularity committed while deciding the objection by both the Courts below and secondly, right of bonafide purchaser of the suit property against the Decree-holder.

(2.) Question is whether appeal needs to be admitted or requires summary dismissal. Law on this point is very clear. It is not mandatory on the Second Appellate Court to frame substantial questions of law. Only when this Court is satisfied, then only they needs to be framed. The test of satisfaction needs to be fulfilled. The discretion is not arbitrary. But it is governed by settled principles of law as interpreted by Hon 'ble Supreme Court in various judgments. If materials are not considered, law not properly interpreted are some of the parameters. Furthermore when concurrent findings are there, the scope is very limited. If the findings are to be reversed, then questions need to be framed and not otherwise. With this background the appeal can be decided.

(3.) There was a decree for specific performance passed by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Panvel. It was on the basis of agreement for sale dtd. 1/3/1988. The suit land is survey no.104, hissa no.3, situated at village Bekare, Taluka : Karjat, District : Raigad. There were eight Defendants. None of them have contested the suit. Defendant No.8 half-heartedly preferred an Appeal against the judgment of the trial Court. That is to say, he has not filed the Appeal in time. After his Delay Condonation Application was allowed, he could secure an order thereby staying execution of decree for specific performance. In addition to that, there was a condition not to create third party interest by both the parties. Conveniently, he has not followed up with his Advocate appearing in that Appeal. Resultantly, his Advocate filed no instruction purshis. Accordingly, the appeal came to be dismissed on 11/2/1999.