gst 1 ao1429.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1429 OF 2010. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1767 OF 2010. Manik Bhagwan Navagaire .... .... .... Appellant. V/s Mrs.Sushila Hanmant Mali ... .... .... Respondent. Mr.Pratap Patil, Adv. For the appellant. Mr.J.G.Reddy, Adv. For the respondent. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 19th Jan.., 2011 PC: By consent the appeal is taken up for final hearing. By way of present appeal the appellant challenges the order dated 4.10.2005 vide which the application filed by the present appellant for restoration of Special Civil Suit No.117/02 which came to be dismissed in default, came to be rejected. The plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement for sale which was executed on stamp paper of Rs.20/-. It is the contention of the appellant that since the agreement was insufficiently stamped application was made to the learned trial Court for impounding the same which was allowed. It is further submitted that the application for amendment of the plaint was also pending before the learned trial Court. It is therefore submitted that in that view of the matter, the appellant-plaintiff did not proceed with the evidence of the matter. It is therefore submitted that in this view of the matter the application for restoration of suit ought to have been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the appeal. He submits that no sufficient cause has been made for restoration of the suit. gst 2 ao1429.10.sxw He submits that the appellant has been thoroughly negligent and as such no interference is warranted in the appeal from order. It is further submitted that the suit itself is without any limitation. It is submitted that the signatures of the respondent who is uneducated lady were obtained by coercion/fraud and that it was money transaction. It is therefore submitted that no interference is warranted. 3. It is not in dispute that the since the agreement was insufficiently stamped the applicant had moved the trial Court for impounding the said document and same was allowed. It is also not in dispute that the application for amendment of the plaint was pending. In that view of the matter I find that instead of foreclosing the doors of justice, it will be appropriate that athe parties be permitted to get their dispute settled on merits. In so far as the prejudice that is caused to the respondent-defendant is concerned, the same cane be compensated by saddling the costs. 4. In that view of the matter appeal is allowed. Order dated 19.10.2002 dismissing the suit in default and order dated 4.10.2005 rejecting the application No.59/02 are quashed and set aside. Suit No.117/02 is restored to file. However it shall be subject to costs which are quantified at Rs.15000/- to be payable by the appellant to the respondent-plaintiff. Costs to be deposited in the trial Court within a period of fours weeks from today. On deposit of the costs the respondent-plaintiff shall be entitled to withdraw the same. Condition of deposit of costs is pre-condition for allowing the appeal. In the event costs are not deposited within stipulated period appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. 5. In view of disposal of appeal, no orders are necessary on civil application No. 1767/10 and the same also stands disposed of.