05.cas.1501.26.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1501 OF 2026 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO.21773 OF 2026 (RAMANNA GODARJU JADHAV (DEAD) THR. HIS LRS – VS - SHRI DIPAK GAJANAN KALASKAR) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. H.D. Jichkar, Advocate for the applicants. CORAM:- MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI , J. DATED :- OCTOBER 14, 2026 The applicant has filed this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay is of 60 days. 2. Considering the reasons stated in the application and the explanation furnished for the delay, application is allowed and the delay of 60 days is hereby condoned, subject to the applicant depositing costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) in the “Public Welfare Account”, bearing Account No. 129712010001014, IFSC Code: UBIN0812978, maintained with Union Bank of India, Branch High Court, Civil Lines, Nagpur. 3. Civil Application stands disposed of. 4. Registry is directed to register the appeal. *Divya 05.cas.1501.26.odt 2 5. The applicant to remove the office objection(s), if any, within a period of two weeks. SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO.21773 OF 2026 6. The appellant is the original defendant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance. The suit was partly decreed. The appeal was preferred by the defendant. The Appellate Court has confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, on the proposed substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether the Courts below erred in law in decreeing the suit without recording any finding on the bar of limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, when Section 3 of the said Act casts a mandatory obligation on every court to dismiss a suit instituted beyond the prescribed period regardless of whether the defence of limitation was specifically pleaded? (ii) Whether the First Appellate Court was right in holding the suit to be within limitation merely because a notice was issued by the plaintiff in 2008, nearly six years after the agreement dated 29.08.2002, without examining whether such a belated, unilateral notice can extend the period of limitation, or whether, in the absence of a fixed date for performance, the suit ought to have been filed within a reasonable time of the agreement? *Divya 05.cas.1501.26.odt 3 (iii) Whether the Courts below misdirected themselves in law in holding that the Plaintiff had proved continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, as mandatorily required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, despite the fact that the Plaintiff himself was in hibernation for nearly six years from the date of the Agreement to Sell much less the duty being cast upon him in the said agreement to prepare necessary documents required for the permission to sell the suit property? 7. Issue notice to the respondent, returnable after four weeks. ( MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI , J. ) *Divya Signed by: Mrs. Divya Baldwa Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 14/10/2026 17:55:02