Bombay High Court
Deepak Ahire And Pranit Corporation vs Maniben S. Desai And 15 Ors on 11 March, 2019
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
41-S128-13.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO. 128 OF 2013
Deepak Ahire & Pranit Corporation ...Plaintiffs
Versus
Maniben S Desai & Ors ...Defendants
Ms Shaba N Khan, i/b RV Govilkar, for the Plaintiffs.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J
DATED: 11th March 2019
PC:-
1.The suit is for specific performance. The Plaintiffs seek a decree for specific performance in respect of two Agreements for Sale dated 23rd March 2006, copies of which are at Exhibit "H3" and "H4" to the plaint. The property in question is at Village Boisar, Taluka Borivali. The Defendants were served with a writ of summons and there is an Affidavit of Service dated 31st August 2013. On 22nd January 2014, the Prothonotary and Senior Master noted this service. He also noted that some months earlier on 25th October 2013 he had directed all the Defendants to file their written statements by 22nd January 2014. The order said that in default the suit would be transferred to the list of undefended causes. There were no written statements. The suit was thus transferred to the list of undefended suits. There can be no question about service Page 1 of 2 11th March 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:47:15 ::: 41-S128-13.DOC because on 25th October 2013, Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 were in fact represented before the Prothonotary and Senior Master.
2. The learned Advocate for the Plaintiff tenders an Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of one Deepak Ahire. There is also a compilation of original documents. Mr Deepak Ahire is present in Court. His Affidavit is taken on file. He is administered oath. His further examination-in-chief is taken separately.
3. None present to cross-examine Mr Ahire. The cross- examination of PW1 is closed. The Plaintiffs close their case.
4. Having regard to the averments made in the plaint, I believe Mr Govilkar is correct in saying that he will need to address the Court since there are very many orders of the Revenue authorities that will have to be considered. He agrees, in all fairness, that even if there is no written statement, the Court must be satisfied that a decree can be granted as sought. The plaint itself has averments regarding the correctness of some of these orders in revenue proceedings. He also has submissions to make as to the net effect of these proceedings and how these submissions bear out the Plaintiff's case.
5. Hence, list the matter for final arguments of the Plaintiffs on 26th March 2019.
(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 2 of 2 11th March 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2019 01:47:15 :::