Karnataka High Court
M/S Sahara Prime City Ltd vs Basheer Ahamed on 18 December, 2023
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46104-DB
RFA No. 1637 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1637 OF 2023 (SP)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S SAHARA PRIME CITY LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
Digitally signed J. SUDHAKARAN,
by ANUSHA V S/O JAYABALAN
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
COURT OF M/S SAHARA PRIME CITY LIMITED
KARNATAKA REGISTERED OFFICE AT
SAHARA INDIA CENTER, NO.2
KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX
ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW-226 024.
2. M/S SAHARA PRIME CITY LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT
C-2, C-3, C-4 SECTOR-11
NOIDA-201 301.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
J. SUDHAKARAN
S/O JAYABALAN
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ...APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI. S.B. TOTAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BASHEER AHAMED
S/O KODLI IBRAHIM
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDENT NO.6TH AND 7TH CROSS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46104-DB
RFA No. 1637 of 2023
NEHRU NAGARA, SAGAR CITY
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 401.
2. JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH
S/O SRI RAM PHAL VERMA
RESIDENT OF 568, K H A / 502
GEETHAPALLI
ALMBAGH, LUCKNOW-226 005.
3. RAM PAL RAWAT
RESIDENT OF 47 YEARS
RESIDENT OF PURANI BASTI
KHURAM NAGAR
P O BIKASH NAGAR
GUZIPUR
LUCKNOW DISTRICT-226 022.
4. RAJEEV RANJAN SINGH
PUSHKAL SINGH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDENT OF HARIPUR VILLAGE
SUKHPURA POST
BALIA DISTRICT
UTTARPRADESH-577 123. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. R. GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;
SHRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.06.2023 PASSED IN
OS.NO.210/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
THIS RFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
P.S.DINESH KUMAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 96 of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed by defendants No.1 and 2
in O.S.No.210/2022 challenging the judgment and
NC: 2023:KHC:46104-DB
decree dated June 23, 2023 passed by II Additional
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga.
2. Appellants' case is that they were not served in
the trial court. Similarly, owners of the property
namely, defendants No.3 and 5 submit that they were
also not served. Owners of the property entered into a
Joint Development Agreement with defendants No.1
and 2. In turn, they entered into a 'Memorandum of
Understanding' with plaintiff. Plaintiff filed the suit for
specific performance and perpetual injunction and by
impugned order, learned trial judge has decreed the
suit.
3. Heard Shri S.B.Totad, learned advocate for the
appellants, Shri R.Girish, learned advocate for
respondent No.1 and Shri Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned
advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.
4. After arguing the matter for some time, learned
advocates for defendants submitted that the matter
may be remanded to the trial court.
NC: 2023:KHC:46104-DB
5. Learned advocate for the plaintiff-respondent
No.1 submitted that he has no objection to remand
the matter subject to defendants paying cost.
His submission is placed on record.
submitted that the said defendants are prepared to
pay cost of Rs.1 Lakh to the plaintiff.
7. We have carefully considered submissions of
learned advocates on both sides and perused the
judgment. Defendants have remained ex-parte.
The matter requires consideration. Hence, the
following;
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed;
(ii) Judgment and decree dated June 23,
2023 passed by II Additional Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga,
is set-aside;
(iii) The matter is remitted to the trial court
to dispose the suit as expeditiously as
NC: 2023:KHC:46104-DB
possible subject to
load on his board; and
(iv) Parties shall appear without notice on
17.01.2024 and further proceedings
shall be conducted subject to defendants
paying cost of Rs.2 Lakhs to the
plaintiff on that date.
7. Registry shall refund the court fee to the
appellants in accordance with law.
8. In view of disposal of this appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and they stand disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
AV
