Meanwhile, in an inter se litigation between the members of the defendants family, a partition suit had been filed by the present Respondent No.1 being O.S. No.
1 4 and certain others for partition of as many as 22 properties.
The High Court still felt that it was necessary under the rules to effect proper service, as a result of which, by its order dated 27.10.2015, it directed that service be made by Registered Post A.D. This was ultimately done on 03.11.2015, and numberices were returned unserved with postal remarks unclaimed, hence returned to sender.
This was done on 22.03.2007.
The Trial Court, by its judgment dated 07.11.2012, rejected the prayer for specific performance and instead directed that a sum Signature Not Verified of Rs.2,26,40,370/ be paid as refund of part Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date 2019.07.23 125957 IST Reason companysideration already given.
The First Appeal against the aforesaid judgment was filed by the plaintiff on 03.04.2013.
However, only Defendant No.5, who is the Respondent No.1 in this appeal, filed a written statement on 04.02.2011.
Defendant No.5 neither led any evidence number did he avail of any opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff before the trial Court.
1298 of 1999 against the original Defendant Nos.
In this suit, an interim injunction had been passed restraining the defendants from creating third party rights.
Since Suit No.
F. Nariman, J. Leave granted.
Not only this, after this happened, steps were then taken for service through paper publication, which was duly done by a numberice issued in the Newspaper Prabhat which has a wide circulation in Pune, on 18.01.2016.
The present dispute arises out of a specific performance suit that had been filed on 15.10.2010 by the plaintiff against several members of one family.
There were 8 defendants in all.
The property with which the specific performance suit is companycerned is stated to be Item No.7 in the Schedule that is appended to this suit.
