INDU PATWARDHAN Vs. MAJOR FATESINGH N. THOPTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dtd. 22/9/2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune, in Regular Civil Appeal No.1053 of 2012, whereby the appeal, preferred by the Appellants against the judgment and decree dtd. 4/7/2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Pune in Special Civil Suit No.202 of 1992, thereby passing a decree of specific performance of contract, came to be dismissed.

(2.) Shorn of superfluities, the background facts can be stated, as under :

(3.) Dr. Chandrachud, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, would submit that the impugned judgment and decree suffers from manifest error. The Courts below have drawn an unsustainable inference as to the terms of the contract, especially the rate at which the suit flat was agreed to be sold only on the basis of the failure on the part of the Defendant No.1 to give reply to the letter and notice addressed by the Plaintiff. It was for the Plaintiff to establish positively that the suit flat was agreed to be sold at the rate of Rs.540.00 per sq.ft. The Courts below have, thus, completely misconstrued the evidence and that vitiated the findings recorded by the courts below. To buttress the submission that the failure to give reply to the notice does not constitute admission of the statements of facts contained in the notice, Dr. Chandrachud placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India V/s. Watkins Mayor and Co.,1965 SCC Online SC 242. and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajkumar V/s. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai and Ors.,2003 SCC Online Bom 517.