GAJANAN DHONDU DALVI Vs. TRISHUL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff filed a Suit in the City Civil Court for an order directing the 1st defendant to carry his obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 and specifically perform the agreement of sale dated May 31, 1985. The plaintiff joined the 2nd defendant since he claimed the sale of flat by the 1st defendant in March, 1988.

(2.) THE Court framed issues as many as twelve in number. The 1st defendant, who is a builder, absented from the proceedings all the time. The plaintiff stepped in the witness box, gave evidence and closed his case. Thereafter, the constituted attorney of the 2nd defendant stepped in the witness box, gave evidence and closed his case.

(3.) AFTER hearing Mr. Gole for the plaintiff and Miss Misal for the 2nd defendant, I am of the opinion that the order of the learned Judge cannot be sustained in law. In the first place, it is difficult to appreciate the reasoning of the learned Judge and even the learned Advocate for the 2nd defendant fairly conceded that she is not supporting the reasoning of the learned Judge, though, according to her, it is necessary for the plaintiff to state his case in view of the provisions of Rule 2 of Order 18.