CRP/3028/2024 of P.DEIVASIGAMANI Vs S.SAMBANDAN on 1 September 2026

ORDER

The defendant, in a suit for specific performance, being the judgment debtor in E.P No.103 of 2010, aggrieved by the order passed in E.A.No.2 of 2024, dismissing the application filed by him under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code, is the revision petitioner.

2. I have heard Ms.I.Navaneetha Rani, for Mr.K.Venkateswaran, counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.M.V.Seshachari, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would firstly contend that the very valuable immovable property, belonging to the revision petitioner, has been directed to be sold to the respondent/plaintiff and without proper appreciation of the contentions raised in the application filed under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code, the executing Court has proceeded to dismiss the said application on flimsy and erroneous grounds. Learned counsel would further state that though the suit sale agreement was entered into way back in the year 1989, the respondent/plaintiff deposited the balance sale consideration after two decades, by which time, the value of the suit property has increased multi-fold and therefore, the decree cannot be executed. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for the revision being allowed.

4. Per contra, Mr.M.V.Seshachari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would state that the decree for specific performance, which was originally denied by the trial Court, was reversed in appeal in A.S.No.196 of 2002 before this Court on 15.06.2010 and within the time granted by this Court, the balance sale consideration had been deposited and the sale deed was also executed in favour of the respondent. Learned counsel would further state that aggrieved by the judgment and decree in the first appeal, the revision petitioner moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in and by the judgment in Civil Appeal No.9006 of 2011, on 12.10.2022, the High Court enhanced the sale consideration by Rs.1,00,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore only) which amount was also duly deposited on 18.11.2022. Mr.M.V.Seshachari, learned counsel would therefore state that having lost upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is absolutely no merit in the application filed under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code, which was rightly dismissed by the executing Court. Learned counsel would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

6. The respondent, herein, as plaintiff, sought for Specific Performance, of an agreement of sale dated 08.10.1989. Admittedly, there was a balance sale consideration due and payable under the said agreement. The trial Court, however, dismissed the suit dis-entitling the respondent to the relief of specific performance. The dismissal of the suit was challenged by the respondent/plaintiff in A.S.No.196 of 2002 before this Court and this Court, reversed the findings of the trial Court and granted a decree for Specific Performance. While allowing the appeal, this Court also gave three months’ time for depositing the balance sale consideration. Admittedly, there is no quarrel that the said balance sale consideration was paid pursuant to the judgment in A.S.No.196 of 2002. However, challenging the judgment of the first appellate court, the petitioner moved Hon’ble Supreme Court and I am informed by the learned counsel on either side that the parties were referred to Mediation, pending the civil appeal, but, however, there was no amicable settlement reached. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court heard the Civil Appeal on merits and ultimately, found that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of Specific Performance. At the same time, taking into account the fact that the agreement was entered in October 1989 and there has been steep rise in prices of land, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the respondent/plaintiff to deposit further one Crore (Rs.1,00,00,000/-) over and above the agreed sale consideration in the sale agreement, within a period of eight weeks. The said direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also complied with by the respondent pursuant to which, the sale deed was also executed by the Court, in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.

7. The respondent/plaintiff has filed execution petition in E.P.No.103 of 2010 to recover possession of the suit property from the revision petitioner. It is in the said execution petition that the revision petitioner/defendant filed application in E.A.No.2 of 2024 under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code. The only contention that has been raised in the application filed under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code and also argued before me is that the market value of the suit property has jumped up by leaps and bounds and it would be inequitable for the petitioner to hand over possession in furtherance of the decree. The executing Court did not find favour with such contentions and dismissed the application filed under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code.

8. Considering the arguments advanced on either side and the scope of the present revision petition, firstly, I am unable to see how any grounds are available to the petitioner to invoke Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code. The prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of rise in property prices was in fact a bone of contentions even before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and taking note of the same alone, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court enhanced the sale consideration by a further Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner has been addressed and having lost upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter having attained finality, I am unable to see how the petitioner could even maintain the application filed under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code, once again attempting to re-agitate the issue of value of the suit property having gone up many times. In fact, I find that even after disposal of the Civil Appeal, the petitioner filed a modification application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.2127 of 2022 and the said application was also dismissed on 01.02.2023. Thus, having raised all contentions unsuccessfully before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was not open to the petitioner to take out an application under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code, challenging the executability of the decree.

9. The trial Court in and by a well considered order, has rightly found that there is no merit in the application filed under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code. I do not see any grounds warranting interference with the said order of the executing Court, in this revision.

10. In fine, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The executing Court shall execute the decree and dispose of E.P No.103 of 2010 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 01.09.2026 sr Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To The Subordinate Court, Poonamallee

P.B.BALAJI.,J sr Pre-delivery Order in CRP No. 3028 of 2024 01...09.2026