1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 494 OF 2009 Sakunath @ Sakruba s/o Changdeo Kaitake .. APPELLANT VERSUS Sayeed Yousuf s/o Sayyed Ahmed .. RESPONDENT Shri A.M. Hajare, Advocate holding for Shri V.D. Sapkal and A.B. Kale, Advocate for the appellant. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 5 th September, 2009 PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original defendant raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiff instituted suit claiming specific performance of agreement entered into by defendant for alienating agricultural property for consideration of Rs.11,000 on 27-4-1988. Defendant received an amount of Rs.8,000/- on the same date. As the defendant failed to perform his part of the contract i.e. to execute sale-deed on accepting balance of consideration amount, plaintiff instituted suit in the year 1989. Defendant did 2 not appear before the trial court. The suit came to be decreed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Appeal presented by the original defendant was also time barred. However, the first appellate court considering the nature of litigation condoned the delay and appeal was registered. During the pendency of the proceeding, it is stated that the decree passed by the trial court is executed. Sale-deed is got executed in terms of the decree passed by the trial court so also possession is also delivered in favour of the plaintiff / respondent herein. In these circumstances, I do not deem it appropriate to cause interference in this second appeal. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 3 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa494.09.odt