( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2003 Mahaboob s/o. Karimkhan Pathan .. Appellant Versus Babu s/o. Arjun Hulge and ors. .. Respondents Shri A.R. Borulkar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.N. Boirwar h/f. Shri M.A. Kandharkar, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 10.06.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri A.R. Borulkar for the appellant and Adv. Shri S.N. Boirwar h/f. Adv. Shri M.A. Kandharkar for respondent No.1. The Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Osmanabad, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 96 of 2000, decided on 03.05.2002, whereby the Court modified the decree of dismissal of Regular Civil Suit No. 84 of 1988, by the Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Omerga, on 27.04.2000 and granted relief of injunction only. ( 2 ) 2. The appeal is filed by the original plaintiff mainly being aggrieved by the fact that his prayer for specific performance of agreement of sale was refused. The specific performance is refused mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. 3. In para 31 and 32 the relevant discussion is there and the District Court has observed that it is pleaded in the plaint para 1 by the plaintiff that even during lifetime of deceased Arjun, he repeatedly requested Arjun to execute sale-deed, but Arjun gave false promises. It is stated that in other words Arjun avoided to execute the sale deed and therefore, suit ought to have been filed during lifetime of Arjun himself. In para 32 it is further stated that in Regular Civil Suit No.172 of 1977 filed by wife and sons of defendant No.1 for partition and separate possession, present plaintiff was defendant No.2. Copy of written statement filed by present appellant is produced on record and it clearly shows that in the said suit contention was taken by present appellant/plaintiff that ( 3 ) in order to defeat the agreement of sale executed in his favour, the suit was filed. So, refusal to execute the sale-deed was known atleast when such written statement was filed. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the error is committed by the Courts below in refusing to grant specific performance. 4. Moreover, pending this appeal, no steps were taken for proper service on respondent Nos. 2,3,5 & 6 from whom specific performance was prayed. As a result, the appeal is dismissed against said four respondents and in their absence it is not possible to grant relief of specific performance in this appeal. 5. In this view of the matter, this appeal cannot be admitted and hence it is dismissed at the stage of admission. Parties to bear their own costs. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/JUN09/sa59.03