:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE SECOND APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.373 OF 200 NO.373 OF 200 NO.373 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1479 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1479 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1479 OF 2008 Sanjay Aba Shinde ...Appellant. v. Namdev Hari Naikwadi & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.Kishor Redekar , adv. for the Appellant. Mr.Dilip Bodake , adv. for the Respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 10th September, 2008. DATE: 10th September, 2008. DATE: 10th September, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant. 2. The defendant/respondent no.1 got executed agreement for sale from the father of the plaintiff on 14-3-1975 in respect of suit property. Consideration was shown to be Rs.5,000/- and it was stated in the agreement that an amount of Rs.4,500/-, which was received by the father of the plaintiff from time to time as a loan, was adjusted towards the consideration and the balance amount was payable within two months. On 13-3-1978 the defendant no.1 filed regular civil suit no.98 of 1978 for specific performance of the contract. Pending that suit, father of the present plaintiff died. :2: The suit was decreed on 11-3-1985. At that time, the present plaintiff was minor and his mother did not file any appeal. His mother died in April, 1987. At that time, the plaintiff was 15 years old. On 29-9-1992 plaintiff filed regular civil suit no.333 of 1992 for setting aside the decree passed in regular civil suit no.98 of 1978 in favour of the respondent no.1 on the ground of non payment of the consideration amount. After that in December, 1992, the respondent no.1 filed execution proceeding and deposited the balance amount. On 18-3-1997 the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed. He preferred regular civil appeal no.247 of 1997. That appeal was also dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiff has preferred the second appeal. 3. It appears that before the Courts below, it was contended that the balance amount was not paid within time, and, therefore, the decree could not be executed. However, the Courts below rejected the contention holding that the decree for specific performance could be executed within 12 years. This finding is as per the provisions of Article 136 of the Limitation Act. There is nothing to show that the decree was obtained by the respondent no.1 by playing any fraud. That decree could have been challenged by the present plaintiff by filing an appeal against the judgment of the trial Court in that suit but admittedly, no such appeal was preferred and that judgment and decree in favour of the respondent :3: no.1 has become final. 4. In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in the present appeal. 5. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. As the appeal itself is dismissed, civil application no.1479 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)