1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS and Registrar’s Orders. SA NO.421/2005 (VISHNU VS.RAMDAS) WITH SA NO.303/2005 (SHRIPATI VS. VASANT) 1. Heard Shri Choukidar, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri Pawar, learned Advocate for respondents 1 and 2. 2. Both appeals raise a challenge to the concurrent judgments of both the courts below. 3. Appellants in Second Appeal No.421 of 2005 are the original plaintiffs, who had instituted RCS No.32 of 1988 against the respondents / original defendants. The suit was instituted for specific performance of the contract. Said suit came to be dismissed. Appeal, being RCA No.398 of 2001 also came to be dismissed. On the other hand RCS No. 293 of 1987 presented by respondents (in S.A.No.421 of 2005) claiming decree of perpetual injunction was allowed by the trial Court and prohibitory order was clamped against the appellants. An appeal preferred being RCA No.398 of 2001 by defednants in said suit, also came to be dismissed. Against said judgment, Second Appeal No.303 of 2005 is preferred. 4. Suffice to note that the plaintiffs, in RCS No.32 of 1988 are claiming specific performance of agreement executed on 11.6.1973 by presenting the plaint in the year 1988 i.e. almost fifteen years after the execution of the agreement to sell. 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS and Registrar’s Orders. Respondents were justified in raising the objection for grant of relief in favour of the appellants, on the ground that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. The Courts below have accepted the defence of the defendants therein and recorded a finding that the suit is barred by limitation. 5. The findings on issue of limitation, concurrently recorded by the Courts below, need not be interfered with while dealing with the present Second Appeal No.421 of 2005. 6. So far as Second Appeal No.303 of 200 is concerned, it is concurrently recorded by both the Courts below that plaintiff in RCS No. 293 of 1987 has established his legal entitlement as well as possession over suit property. There is no just reason to disturb findings of fact concurrently recorded by Courts below. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in both these appeals. 7. In the result, both the Second Appeals stand dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. Dt.23.7.2009 (R.M.BORDE, J.) akl