j%i'ill%^ii%itl3 %^ ^ol OF AT : Shri Deshmukh, J. Second No.14 of APPELLANT (Defendaiit) Valiabhdas Nemichand Bawariya, about 78 years, son of Nemichand, through ^Maharashtra Saree Store, Sadar Bazar, Ralpur. Versvs (Plajntlff) Rameshchand Pandey, 58 years, son of Mannuram Pandey, resident of House No.29, Valiabh Housing Society, Vaiiabh Nagar, Raipur, 100 ofCode ofCivil Present : Shri B.P. Sharma, counsei for the appeliant/defendant. on 28th November, Learned counsel for the due •to a typographica! error In the titie, the word 'appelSant/plalntiff3 has appeared whereas it ought to have and prays for perrnisslon of thls Court to correct the typographicaj^error in the Court. Permission granted. The error be now. 2. cn admission, 3. Tne is. by the judgrnent and decree dated 29-06-2006 In Civli Appeal No.15-A/'2004 passed by IXth Addltional Dlstrict Judge, F.T.C., Raipur by the and decree 12-07-2001 in Clvl! Suit No.17-A/1995 passed by 1 Clvll Judge, Class-i. Raipur for performance of affirmed. 4. It-ls not-disputed by the counsei for the the appeliant/defendant to seij the suit house to the respondenfc^plaintrff and had a sum of Rs.21,500/- as shown in ExP-17. It is not that the respondent/pialntiff ^^^^s^^^^,.,,,,^_, put in possession of the su'lt accommodation on 13-01-1973 by the appeIIanVdefendant and contlnues to be In possession thereof 5. Shri BP. Sharma, counsel for the has the Impugned judgment and malnly on the ground that there 'vvas no consensus ad-idem between the over a concluded ora! ' whlle the respondenVpIaintlff contended the to se!i the suit accommodation fbr a of Rs.21,500/- the appeliant/defendant had pleaded that the consideratlon Rs.40,000/-. Heavy was on vs, in (1990) 4 SCC 147, !t that both the Courts beiow were not justlfled In granting for perforinance of contract in vlew of the speclflc in the mortgage that the suit house shail not be transferred wlthout the prevl&us permlsslon in writing ofthe Housing Board. 8, Havlng heard the counse! for the ! have the record of Civij Sult No.17aA/1995. the Courts below justifled In recording a finding that the had to prove the Rs,40,000/-< As the other ground by the counsel for the appellant/defendant Is concemed, Ex, D-2 shows prior to the agreement 13-1-1973 the loan of Rs.20,000/" advanced by the Housing Board in August.1970 was paid in fuli by the vide recelpts D-3 for RsJQ<000/~ on 28-10-1970, Ex. D-4 for Rs.6000/- on 2.2.1971 and Ex. D-5 for Rs.4,000./- on 7-5-1971. The respondent/plaintiff is adrnlttedly In of the suit accommodat-ion 13aa7a-1973. 1 am of the oplnlon the discretion by the Courts In a for specific perforrnance of is a sound discretion on proper appreclation of evidence -oral as well as documentary. 7. in thls view of the no substantlai-questlon of law for in this which Is accordingiy at the of admlssion. • ;-——~~~~~ ^^^-%S®S^^:%E^ :-..""^ r ^^. 1 %ISS&1 8. Consequentiy, IVI.(C.) P. No.253/2007 which is an appiication for grant of stay also stands disrnissed. interlm stay granted on 05-11 -2007 stands vacated. | Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Kvr