1 / 3 11-CAS 817-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO.817 OF 2026 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 18739 OF 2025 Bapurao Govindrao Dhobale and anr. Vs. Deepak Ranilalji Chhangani ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. N.V.Fulzele,counsel for the applicants/Appellants. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATE : 15/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. This is an application for condonation of 31 days’ delay caused in filing the appeal. 3. Considering the reasons given in the application, the application is allowed and the delay is hereby condoned. 4. Registry to register the appeal. 5. Civil Application stands disposed of. SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 18739 OF 2025 1. The appellants are the original defendants. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance against the appellants. The trial court decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred Kavita 2 / 3 11-CAS 817-26 an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 2. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. on the following proposed substantial questions of law:- a. Whether, the learned trial court and first appellate court ought to have seen and appreciated that no signature of defendant (present respondent) was scribed over Exh. 16 nor it was written in presence of appellants at Karanja. Thus the Exh. 16 remained unproved however the learned trial court and first appellate court appreciated the documents against the prevailing preposition of law. b. Whether, the learned trial court and first appellate court wrongly held and concluded that present appellants have received earnest amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondent. In fact there is no evidence to the effect about payment of consideration in the form of earnest amount. c. Whether , the learned trial court and first appellate Court ought to have failed to appreciate that in fact no earnest amount was ever paid by the present respondent to the appellants at any spur of the movement. In fact some alleged amount was paid for some transaction between son of appellants by name Chagan and respondent. This aspect is totally overlooked and hence the judgment and decree Kavita 3 / 3 11-CAS 817-26 passed by trial court and first appellate Court deserves to be quash and set-aside. d. Whether the continuous readiness and willingness of original plaintiff from the date of agreement is proved by cogent and reliable evidence on record? In absence of the same whether the action of courts below is justified in law? 3. Issue notice to the respondent on the above mentioned proposed substantial questions of law, returnable on 13/10/2026. JUDGE Kavita Signed by: Kavita P Tayade Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 16/09/2026 17:01:40