IN THE HIGH COURT 0F KARRATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10*" DAY or-»' NOVEMBER 2003*, PRESENT A THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE K.sREEI>HAR- I. AND I ,, % THE HON'BLE HR.JusITcE c§;R.I(uIIARAswAIa§!V If_TA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL N'cI.4:?_2 OFQQQS = I " 3 EN: _ V , M13 ANUVARATH APPEARLS RRIvAT5I;II4I_TaD"-» A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPAPIEY 'R.EGI.sTEREv UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACE', --I9'5_e . . - AT NO 108, 7?" MAIN, II BLOCK '- _ 5 A JAYANAGAR, BANGALQRE - SIRIIIIII REPRESENTED EY.I'":"S DIRECTOR _ SHRI PRARASH (;%_§ANI5* _ _ (3v'$R1'm'rH$; 'H'--I?s--r:iwARAItANATH, AJII'..3_<AI.vAI~I,_ Aavogxares) QIKARIJAIAIAA I1*§I::II;sTRIAI. AREAS I;5vELomEIIrI'«50ARD IRE?RESENT~'«:ED' EV'-ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AT N314/3, II FLOOR RASTRGTHAMX PARISHAT BUILDING NRUP:'\THUNGA; ROAD 'vV.BANGALDR.E:_ - 569 001 ...RESP€3NDENT I " .. " * .._(Bv"'sRI: P v cHAHoRAsHEI<HAR, ADVOCATE) "THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL Is FILED UNDER SECTION 95 0? I CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUBGMENT ANS DEGREE I ~I3.5\TED 24.11.2605 PASSEID IN O.S.NO.569f2001 ON THE FILE (3? THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR,.DN.), EANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BIGINGALORE, « DISMIS-SING THE SUIT FGR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND INJUNCTION. THIS REGULAR FIREET APPEAL COMING ON FGR ADMISSION THIS DAY, K. SREEDHAR 81540, 3., DELIVERED THE FOLLGWING: i? J_LLD_§_!!_E.fl_I The appeliant / plaintiff had filed a suit for relief of specific performance against the respondent,ja
statutory authority. The appellant / ‘
application for allotment of lanidliillorii
respondent had stated that the land’vpe’r._acreLiS_
The appellant had remitted Rs.2:3fl,00t3/~»._towerds;rthesinitiail
deposit. The respondenhhad”l’n’otlv..I/passed anforder on the
application of the piaintifi aliiioltrnentl”ef;Vla__li.d. It is the case
of the plaintiff’tvtiat_:the”oficia«isf of the respondent had made
an oral aesiuranceilthat”:”t~h”e”‘.land would be ailotted. The
V written”steten1ent”averments of the respondent shows that
rnade preluiiminary inspection of the land that is
proposed’ito:_oe’Vv’a~i’lotted to the plaintiff which was found to be
_ 1,865 sq; The respondent tentatively fixed the cost of
the rate of R525 lakhs per acre. The above
.._proposals were communicated to the plaintiff. The plaintiff
-reouested to reduce the cost of the land to Rs.12 lakhs per
it ‘ acre. The same was rejected. The plaintiff did not pay the
balance amount as required under the Reguiation.