: 1 : sa.254.2011 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.254 OF 2011 Shri Balasaheb Sakharam Sakure .. Appellant V/s. Shri Sambhaji Nivruti Landge & ors. .. Respondents Mr.P.J. Pawar for the Appellant Mr.Niranjan Mogre I/b S.M. Gorwadkar for the Respondent No.1 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 15, 2011 P.C.: 1. The second appeal is preferred by the defendant before the trial Court. The plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of a registered sale deed. Defendant No.1 did not file his written statement before the trial Court nor did he contest the suit. The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence before it, decreed the suit partly. It held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover earnest money of Rs.30,000/- from Defendant No.1 with interest @6% p.a. till realisation. 2. Being aggrieved by the decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No.416 of 2004. The defendant again did not appear in the appeal and the appeal proceeded ex-parte. The appeal was allowed and the appellate Court directed that the plaintiff to deposit the amount of Rs.30,000/- in the Court within one month for being paid to defendant No.1 as the balance consideration : 2 : sa.254.2011 for the suit land. It was further directed that Defendant No.1 should execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property within one month of the amount being deposited by the plaintiff in the trial Court. Defendant No.1 has preferred the present appeal contending that the appellate Court has erroneously held that no permission was required prior to the sale being effected of the suit property. It is contended that since the suit land fell within the Minor Irrigation project as held by the trial Court, the appellate Court could not have observed that the land fell within some other project for which no permission was required. Defendant No.1 i.e. the appellant herein, chose not to defend the suit or the appeal and in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellate Court has erred in concluding that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the registered sale deed. The appellant was not able to demonstrate that any permission was required prior to completion of the sale. 3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, nothing survives in Civil application No.1458 of 2008 and the same is dismissed as such. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.)