AYURVED UTKARSHA MANDAL VIDARBHA PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT DR. PRAMOD WASUDEORAO SALVE v. PREMDAS S/O. KISANRAO THORAT AND ANOTHER
CAS/680/2025 · 2026-09-09
body2015
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2015 DAILYLAW 3039 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2015 DAILYLAW 3039 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
31. SA 313.15.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL
NO.313 OF 2015
Ayurved Utkarsha Mandal Vidarbha Pradesh through its President – Dr. Pramod Vs. Premdas K. Thorat and anr. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Ms. M. A. Mundle, Advocate for appellant. Mr. R. R. Anthoy, Advocate h/f. Mr. R. T. Anthony, Advocate for respondent No.1.
CORAM :
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 09.09.2026.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.892 OF 2025 . Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the application seeking framing of an additional substantial question of law.
2.
Learned counsel for the appellant has brought to the notice of this Court that, though there were pleadings and the requisite Court fee was not paid for the prayer seeking cancellation of the sale deed, the corresponding substantial question of law was not framed at the time of framing of the substantial questions of law. As the relevant pleadings were on record and the issue was not considered by both the Courts below, the following additional substantial question of law is framed:-
“Without reversing the Trial Court's finding that the Plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for specific
2
31. SA 313.15.odt performance since a part of the suit land was governed by a registered sale deed between defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 and plaintiff had failed to pay requisite court fee with respect to his prayer for cancellation of sale deed, whether the Appellate Court was justified in upholding the plaintiff's prayer for cancellation of sale deed and passing a decree for specific performance?”
2. The application is allowed and disposed of.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.680 OF 2025
3. This is an application filed by respondent No.1 seeking grant of early hearing by a fixed date.
4. Respondent No.1 is 73 years of age. Considering the age of respondent No.1, the application is allowed.
5. The matter be kept on the final hearing board on the week commencing from 12.10.2026.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) T αɳɱαყ...