DIGAMBAR GULABRAO DESHMUKH Vs. PANCHAM AMRUTA KARUNYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Second Appeal the original defendant . land owner is challenging the reversing judgment dated 31.7.1990 delivered in Regular Civil Appeal No. 140 of 1989 by the Additional District Judge, Washim. The present respondent . Pancham had filed a Civil Suit vide Regular Civil Suit No.5 of 1985 for grant of specific performance before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Washim, and on 31.3.1987, said suit came to be dismissed. Regular Civil Appeal under Section 96 filed vide Appeal No. 140 of 1989 came to be allowed on 31.7.1990 by the Additional District Judge, Washim. This Court has admitted the appeal for final hearing vide its order dated 25.3.1991 and the order reads .Rule returnable as to whether it is money lending transaction.. Thus, it is apparent that nature of transaction between parties is treated as substantial question of law by this Court.

(2.) I have heard Shri Gawali, learned counsel for the appellant . original defendant and Shri Mohta, Advocate holding for Shri Lohiya, learned counsel for the respondent . original plaintiff.

(3.) Shri Gawali, learned counsel has contended that the agreement at Exh. 23 dated 19.3.1984 between parties is not found to be an agreement for sale by the trial Court and it has been held to be a money lending transaction. He states that this has been reversed by the appellate Court without recording any valid reasons therefor and by ignoring the material on record. He has invited attention to paras 14 and 15 of the judgment of appellate Court to point out how the instances of money lending placed on record have been erroneously construed by the appellate Court. He further states that during the pendency of Second Appeal, the present appellant came across some other documents which show that money lending was the regular business of present respondent. He states that therefore Civil Application No.3846 of 2000 was filed seeking permission to amend written statement. Civil Application No.3848 of 2000 was filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to file additional documents on record and another application vide Civil Application No.5181 of 2002 was also filed for the same purpose. He further states that one more application vide Civil Application No.3553 of 2004 was also filed to produce two documents in relation to two Court matters. He further points out that because of impugned judgment and decree mother Mathurabai and sister Pushpabai of present appellant had filed suit for partition and Second Appeal No.676 of 2004 and Second Appeal No. 683 of 2004 filed by present respondent Pancham challenging adjudication in those Civil Suits are also pending before this Court. He points out that Civil Application No.3553 of 2004 also sought relief of stay of hearing of present Second Appeal till the adjudication of partition suits.