^z..M^ ^-"^yo.^T ^' ^ ^- > iASENoJsp IM THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT BILA$PUR ro S.A. S 2£ 72006 APPELLANT ^PLAINTIFF ^OHAMMAD SIDDIQUI S/0 Hanif Mohammed Aged about, 58 Yrs. Resident Of, Nayapara, Balodabazar, District Raipur. (C.G.) RESPONDENTS /DEFENDENTS ^ c°? VERSUS X. BUDHRAM S/0 3ANGARAM PANDEY Aged About, 52 Yrs. (Wrongly mentioned as 22 Yrs.) R/0, Balodabazar, District, Raipur. ^. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Through Collector, Raipur. (C.G.) y^ V MfiMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTlOM^QWjm CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE XI-HC-78 3^ '*ll<ll<r<<M, ^rH^'lc, fs)dW^< * s-^-w^^^ h *11*1<^T»»+(|ch ^ 200 ^ W M5f^ 5'^TT^TC ^rf^cT 3TT^T 04-01-2007 Shri Prakash Tiwari, lea| Shri Akhil Agrawai, Pan< Heard on admission. Brief facts are that the I A/2002 in the Court of Civil performance of contract as injunction. it was pieaded that| into an agreement dated 09.0| Number-265/2 Area measurinfa was agreed that the saie dee<| crops in the year-1988. An a| However, thereafter the regi} respondent No.l/defendant c^n property and he would a!ier|ate effected amongst the parties.l defendant to execute the redi postponed the matter. A notic^ ^ned counsel for the appellant. ^l Lawyer for the respondent No.2. as iate as on 20-11-2002 to tK on 21-11-2002. The learned the suit on the ground that th| willingness to execute his paj that the suit was barred by Iim| Aggrieved by the said preferred Civii Appeai No.1- Judge, Baioda Bazar, Distri|=t- judgment and decree date<|l cbi^F<n41Ti ^i^<nT^'te^'rf^R^K ^3Tf^T3TT^T Iplaintiff/appellant fiied a Civii Suit No.161- Judge CIass-1, Baloda Bazar for specific Iso for declaration of title and permanent |:he respondent No.1 Budhram had entered S.1988 to seii the suit iand bearing Khasara 0.275 Hectare @ Rs.22,500/- per acre. it would be executed after the harvesting of |nount of Rs.2,000/- was paid as advance. ^try of the suit iand was delayed by the the pretext that the sult iand was joint the suit land only after partition was in year-1989, the piaintiff again asked the istered saie deed but the defendant again was sent vide Ex.P-2 aimost after 13 years |e defendant and the Civi! Sult was instituted ^ivil Judge Class-i, Baloda Bazar dlsmissed plaintiff had failed to prove readiness and of the agreement and also on the ground itation under Articie-54 oftheLimitation Act. judgment and decree, the p!aintiff/appe!lant 1-^2006 before the ist Additlonal District ^t-Raipur which was aiso dismissed vide 25-09-2006 while affirming the finding (Divil XI-HC-78 ]^^^<jl^?l ;0^^plNdH^< 8T-:)Ii-IX 4o OTiE;HW5:ayHi<o' ?^^1 0 (t^^i^^^^^t^) ^n^T^E.^Ti'N; craT 3TI^Tst)^Icb •¥' ^ c 74 .o.;r<i %^ ^rg] ^ 'j-F,^'|]4 '^^W 1 [^^ uf^b; ^?^<TRK ^rf?cT WN' •^pl^v i.,,n-.^-c,.r^ - - - - - " ' ~{ recorded by the iower ^ourt. Ag^ Second Appeal. j Shri Prakash Tivfari, iearnec} that in the plaint readiness and wj piaintiff to perform his p^rt of the !t is settied iaw that grant c| discretionary reiief and the plaint readiness and willingn^ss at a!l ti| Article-54 of the Limitation ActJ s commences from the date fixed for| Both the Courts beiow havel 1 to the conciusion that ^he plaintiff| wiliingness to perform h;is part of t^ as on 21-11-2002 was Jclearly bar Limitation Act. 1 am ofj the consi< flnding of fact recorde^ by both appreciation of evidencfe orai as ^ question of iaw is invoived in this Appeai is dismissed at the stage o| !n view of abov^, M.(C.)P| under Order-39 Rule-1 & 2 of consequence, I.A.No.4156/2006 f^ of. No order as to costs.i Certified copy asjper rules. ^rafeFft^ w^ft'tfted^^5 ^^ ysT& 'nttR ^n^s^ srf^sn^^i^^^^ rieved, the appeiiant ha^ preferred this counsei for the appeiiant has admitted |ilingness on the part of |he appellant / c<)ntract was not specificaili? pieaded. specific performance of contract is a ;[ff is required to piead and prove his |nes. It is aiso not disputed that under the period of iimitatlorti of 3 years |the performance of the contract. |on^( proper appreciationjoffacts come has faiied to prove his feadiness and |e contract and that the si|it filed as iate ted by limitation under Articie-54 of the |ered opinion that the c^ncurrent (he Courts belovi/, is ba^ed on proper ^eli as documentary and po substantial ^econd Appeai. As a resull, this Second admission. ! N0.2220/200S which is ^n appiication \ i.P.C. aiso stands disrnissed. As a r urgent hearing also stands disposed .^1^-——-—-— Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge P.T.O.