ABHAY KUMAR KOTHARI Vs. ARUN KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the defendant/petitioner has called in question the legal validity of the order dated 25-11-99 passed in Civil Suit No. 47-A/95 by the learned First Additional District Judge, Chhindwara.

(2.) THE facts as have been undraped are that the non- applicant filed the aforesaid suit for Specific Performance of Contract averring that the defendant had executed an agreement dated 8-10-94 for sale of a house for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- and in pursuance of the terms of the agreement had taken Rs. 60,000/ -. It is further set-forth in the plaint that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement the defendant was required to execute the sale-deed by 31-10-95 and the registration fee was to be borne by the plaintiff and the possession was to be handed over at the time of sale. Though in the month of April, 1995 the plaintiff approached the defendant with Rs. 60,000/-and requested him to get the sale-deed executed the defendant avoided to execute the sale-deed on some pretext or other. Because of this situation the plaintiff sent a registered notice through his counsel on 31-8-95 requiring the defendant to inform him about the date of registration. In spite of the issuance of the registered letter there was no change in the attitude of the defendant. As the date of registration approached nearer the plaintiff sent a telegram on 27-9-95 indicating that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and therefore, the defendant should remain present in the Office of the Sub- Registrar on 10-10-95. The defendant refused to accept the said telegram. Thereafter, in "jabalpur Express" the plaintiff got a notice published requiring the defendant to execute the sale-deed within eight days. In the said notice it was also stipulated if the defendant did not execute the sale-deed by 31-10-95 the proceeding will be initiated in Court. The plaintiff eagerly waited till 31-10-95 and after the said date expired he filed the suit for specific performance of contract and for delivery of possession.

(3.) THE defendant filed his written statement disputing the execution of the agreement and further disputing the averments made in the plaint.