RAMESH RAGHOBA RANE Vs. KAMLABAI SAKHARAM PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After having heard the learned counsel for both sides and after having perused the record and especially the agreement relied upon on the face of it shows that it is in favour of one Kishore and signed by Ashok as power of attorney coupled with the fact that even the N.A. permission is also on the basis of the application dated 11.3.1988 from Kishore Rane. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that there is no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants require to be considered seriously and the issue could be decided only after adducing evidence. In this behalf our attention was drawn to the ad-interim order passed as back as on 7.3.1996 wherein Justice Dhanuka observed that litigation appears to be speculative litigation and ad interim relief was refused. We are informed that the said order was challenged in appeal and in appeal parties were directed to maintain statusquo.

(2.) Thereafter the matter was heard and the Ld-Judge observed that the suit is for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 8th October 1981 and the record shows that all steps are taken by the plaintiff only after 1990 and no explanation was offered as to why the sale was not completed within one year. The ld.Judge found that there is gross delay and laches and he dismissed the motion on that count.

(3.) After having heard the ld. Counsel and having perused the record we agree with the ld Judge that in the facts and circumstances of the case plaintiff is not entitled to any interim reliefs as sought for in the motion. Several contested issues of facts will have to be gone into which can only be determined after the parties adduce evidence. On the basis of the material on record we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.