[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Prakash Ramkrushna Dhenge vs Vijaysingh Ganpatsingh Thakur And ... on 22 January, 2026
15. SA 20 of 2026.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO.20/2026
Prakash Ramkrushna Dhenge
...Versus...
Vijaysingh Ganpatsingh Thakur and another
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -
Mr. R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for appellant
Mr. A.A. Pannase, Advocate for respondent No.1
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 22/01/2026
1. On oral motion made by learned Advocate for the
appellant, respondent No.2 is permitted to be transposed as
appellant No.2.
2. Necessary amendment be carried out forthwith.
3. The appellants are aggrieved by decree for specific
performance of contract, passed by the learned First Appellate
Court. On 30/08/2007, appellant No.2/original defendant
No.1 had entered into agreement of sale with respect to suit
property in favour of the respondent/original plaintiff for a
consideration of Rs.5,75,000/-. Amount of Rs.75,000/- is paid
by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1 on the date of
agreement. As per agreement, sale-deed was to be executed
between 30/08/2007 to 30/12/2007.
15. SA 20 of 2026.odt
4. Perusal of the agreement indicates that the
responsibility of taking measurement of the suit property,
obtaining No Objection Certificate of the Society and making
payment of development charges of Nagpur Improvement
Trust was of the plaintiff-purchaser. The plaintiff states that
apart from the amount of Rs.75,000/- paid at the time of
execution of agreement, he has paid additional amount of
Rs.75,000/- to the defendant No.1 in cash on 14/09/2007,
followed by another payment of Rs.50,000/- in cash on
04/10/2007. The defendant No.1 had issued notice dated
24/09/2008 (Exh.62) to the plaintiff, calling upon him to
execute the sale-deed within a period of 15 days from the date
of receipt of the said notice, failing which the agreement shall
stand cancelled automatically. The plaintiff has replied to the
said notice on 14/10/2008 (Exh.63) contending that he had
been to the house of defendant No.1 on 11/10/2008, calling
upon her to execute Power of Attorney in his favour in order to
enable him to complete formalities regarding measurement,
NOC and development charges. The plaintiff issued another
notice dated 07/11/2008 (Exh.66), calling upon the defendant
No.1 to execute Power of Attorney in his favour for the
aforesaid purpose. In this backdrop, suit for specific
performance is filed on 09/09/2009.
5. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the
payment of Rs.1,25,000/- is not proved. The learned Trial
Court has dismissed the suit for specific performance of
contract. The learned first Appellant Court has allowed the
appeal preferred by the plaintiff thereby granting decree for
15. SA 20 of 2026.odt
specific performance of contract.
6. In view of the aforesaid undisputed position
emerging from record, following substantial questions of law
arise for consideration :-
(i) Whether findings by the learned first
Appellate Court as regards under Section 16 (c) of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 are perverse and contrary to
record ?
(ii) Can discretionary relief of specific
performance be granted to the plaintiff, who has made
incorrect statement as regards payment of
consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- ?
7. Issue notice to the respondents on the substantial
questions of law framed above, returnable on 09/02/2026.
8. Advocate Mr. A.A. Pannase waives service of
notice for the respondent.
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO.222/2024
1. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on
09/02/2026.
2. Advocate Mr. A.A. Pannase waives service of
notice for the respondent.
3. Learned Advocate for the applicant/appellant
states that execution proceeding is filed and sale-deed is also
15. SA 20 of 2026.odt
executed in favour of respondent/plaintiff in the execution
proceeding. He states that the case is fixed tomorrow for order
regarding issuance of warrant of possession.
4. In view of the prima facie case made out by the
appellant as will be apparent from the observations above,
execution of the judgment and decree dated 23/12/2021,
passed by the learned Ad hoc District Judge - 1, Nagpur in
Regular Civil Appeal No.539/2016 is stayed till the returnable
date.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)
Wadkar
Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/01/2026 18:05:22
