KAUSIK CHANDA, J. - (1.) The appeal arises out of an interlocutory order of October 1, 2019 in a matter which was reserved for judgment on July 25, 2018. It is completely unacceptable that judgment would be rendered nearly fifteen months after hearing has been concluded. It is inconceivable that there can be any authentic degree of recollection after such a lapse of time for the judgment to be true to the facts or even the submission made on behalf of the parties.
(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the matter appeared before the single Bench on September 9, 2019, about three weeks before the judgment was ultimately pronounced and the order records that the matter had been listed at the instance of the court since the court required certain clarifications from the parties. It merely proves the point that it is impossible to remember the facts and submission after such long passage of time. It may have been better if the clarifications were not sought since the order of September 9, 2019 does not record that the matter was re-heard.
(3.) The suit is in the nature of specific performance pertaining to an oral agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant for development of a property in the Wellesley area. The essential terms of the agreement, according to the plaintiff-appellant, are recorded in two letters which have been copiously relied on.;