1 AO NO.64/2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 64 OF 2002 ,With CA/4204/2002 ,In AO/64/2002 ,With CA/4204/2002 ,In AO/64/2002 ,With X- OBJST/20220/2002 1. Bhagwan s/o Narayanrao Deshmukh, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agri., r/o village Dawala, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. and other three. ...APPELLANTS (ORIG.PLAINTIFFS) VERSUS 1. Hausabai w/o Parasnath Thombre, Age: 70 years, Occ. Agri., r/o villageBhaygaon, Tq. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad. and others. ...RESPONDENTS (Orig.defendants) ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. R.L.Kute, Adv., h/f Mr.R N Dhorde Advocate for Respondent no.1: Mr. Deelip Patil Bankar. Advocate for appellant in X-OBj.ST.No.20220/2002 ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: December 17, 2011 ... PER COURT :- 1. Heard extensively. 2 AO NO.64/2002 2. In a suit for specific performance by the appellant, there was a decree in his favour in Special Civil Suit No.389/1992 by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. The decree was questioned by the respondent (owners of the property) before the learned District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No.113/1997 and there was Appeal No.119/1997. Both the appeals were heard by the learned District Judge and decided by common judgment. The learned District Judge, on evaluation of facts, did not dispute about possession of the appellant as purchaser of the suit property based on agreement of sale. However, the learned District Judge found that the vendors were two ladies, who did not prosecute the matter diligently; one of them subsequently expired. He felt, there could be misrepresentation, or ladies were prevented from contesting the matter and, consequently, remanded the suit inspite of there being decree in favour of the appellant. 3. This exercise, though criticized by Mr.Kute, by placing reliance to the judgment in the matter of P.Purushottam Reddy and another v. M/s Pratap Steels Ltd.(AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 771), however, I do not find any error on the part of the learned District Judge. It was, in the fact situation, the learned District Judge 3 AO NO.64/2002 felt that fairness warranted that the sellers of the property (respondents herein) should get adequate opportunity to traverse with the case accelerated by the plaintiff (appellant). It is pertinent, the learned District Judge, in paragraph No.13 of the judgment, expressly accepted that the appellants as purchaser are in possession of the land and got decree of perpetual injunction is proper. He has also observed, if defendant nos. 1 and 2 ( respondents herein) succeed in establishing that they had not executed any agreement of sale and if they further succeed in proving that the plaintiff is not entitled for specific performance of contract then the defendant nos. 1 and 2 will have sue for possession. This takes care of the entire matter, protecting rights and interests of appellant as purchaser of the suit property. 4. I do not see any error in learned District Judge directing remand of the matter, however, since the matter is dragged for sufficiently longer period, at least from 1992, the respondents herein shall pay costs of Rs. 500/- ( Rs. five hundred). Appeal From Order No.64/2002 is dismissed with Cross Objection. Civil Application disposed of. 4 AO NO.64/2002 Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, shall ensure expeditious disposal of the matter owing to its age and age of the parties. 5. Heard Mr.Kute. The interim relief is extended upto 16th Jan.,2012. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) ... agp/64-02ao