MACHHINDRA KUNDALIK NALE Vs. VITHAL SENDU LOKHANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent has filed regular Civil Suit No. 115 of 1985 against the petitioners which is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barshi. The suit is for specific performance of the Agreement for sale of the suit property allegedly executed between the parties on 17 -6 -1981. The plaintiff has also sought relief of possession and other reliefs incidental to specific performance. The suit was filed on 13 -3 -1985.

(2.) THE petitioners -defendants filed their written statement on 19 -2 -1986 inter alia raising the contentions that no Agreement for Sale was executed as alleged, that Defendant No. 1 Machhindra was addicted to vices and there was neither any legal necessity nor any other compelling reason for him to have executed an Agreement for Sale and that therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit. Other contentions were also raised which are not necessary to be set out here. The substance of the written statement being that the transaction was denied. It is pertinent to note that Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were minors and their mother had declared the written statement as a guardian of the minors along with Defendant No. 1. The suit relates to a piece of agricultural land. On 16 -1 -1981, the petitioner i.e. defendants presented an application. Exh. 27 under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amending the written statement and thereby to introduce a contention that the real transaction between the parties was a money lending transaction and the suit Agreement for Sale was executed nominally by way of security without any consideration therefor and in connection with previous money lending transactions between the parties. The purport of the plea was that there was no Agreement to Sell the land to the plaintiff.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge rejected the application by order, dated 28,8.1992. That order is the subject -matter of this revision application preferred by the original defendants. I have fully heard Mr. Jamdar for the petitioners and Mr. Palekar for the respondent, Mr. Jamdar submitted that the reasons given by the learned trial Judge for rejecting the application -are erroneous. Mr. Palekar on the other hand strongly supported the order and submitted that the application has been rightly rejected.