Bombay High Court
Ashok Narayan YemulversusNarendra Dasharath Gaikwad
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The second appeal is dismissed as it does not involve any substantial question of law.
Summary
The appellant Ashok Narayan Yemul filed a second appeal challenging a decree dated 2 September 2024 that upheld a trial court decree of 6 October 2009 in a suit for specific performance of a 2005 agreement for sale. The trial court had found that the appellant was ready and willing to perform his contractual obligations, a finding affirmed by the first appellate court. The appellant argued that the decree should be set aside, but the second appellate court observed that the matters before it were purely factual, concerning the existence of a valid agreement and the appellant's readiness, and did not raise any substantial question of law. Consequently, the court held that the second appeal could not be entertained on the merits. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the accompanying interim application was also disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the second appeal raises a substantial question of law warranting appellate review
Subjects
- specific performance
- agreement for sale
- second appeal
- substantial question of law
- factual inquiry
- civil procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:38328
Renuka Thakur 12-SA-202-2025.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO. 202 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3370 OF 2025
Ashok Narayan Yemul ...Appellant/Applicant
V/s.
Narendra Dasharath Gaikwad ...Respondent
________________
Mr. Avinash B. Avhad with Mr. Abhijeet Gosavi for Appellant.
Mr. Aryavrat S. Dubey i/b Mr. Rohit S. Gangawane for Respondent.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 18 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) By this Appeal, the Appellant has challenged the judgment
and decree dated 2 September 2024 passed by the first Appellate Court
dismissing the Appeal and confirming the Trial Court’s decree dated 6
October 2009 passed in SCS No. 1174 of 2007.
2) I have heard Mr. Avhad, the learned counsel appearing for
the Appellant and Mr. Dubey, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent.
Page No.1 of 2
18 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka Thakur 12-SA-202-2025.docx
3) The suit was filed for specific performance of the Agreement
for Sale dated 22 October 2005. The Trial Court has recorded emphatic
finding of readiness and willingness on the part of Plaintiff to perform
his part of the contract. The finding is confirmed in Appeal by the first
Appellate Court. Thus, what is conducted by both the Courts is a mere
factual inquiry into existence of valid agreement for sale and readiness
and willingness on the part of Plaintiff to perform his part of contract.
No substantial question of law is involved in the Appeal.
4) Second Appeal is accordingly rejected.
5) Interim Application is also disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
Page No.2 of 2
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 18 SEPTEMBER 2026
Date: 21/09/2026 15:00:05
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.