CRP/4830/2023 of MAHESWARAN (DIED) 1. M. DEIVANAYAKI Vs K. PALANISAMY on 18 August 2026

COMMON ORDER

The present revision petitions are at the instance of the legal representatives of the defendant in a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.318 of 2000, on the file of the Sub Court, Pollachi.

2. Admittedly, the defendant in the said suit remained ex-parte and the suit came to be decreed on 18.07.2001. The total agreed sale consideration was Rs.1,00,000/-, out of which, the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the remaining sum of Rs.50,000/- was directed to be paid within a period of one month from the date of the decree. Admittedly, the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- has not been deposited. In the interregnum period, the defendant in the suit for specific performance, the original owner, passed away and his legal representatives made an attempt to set aside the ex-parte decree, along with an application, seeking condonation of delay.

3. The petitioners were unsuccessful in the said attempt and despite a challenge before this Court, by way of revision, the ex-parte decree was not set aside. Hence, the decree has become final. In the meantime, the respondent has filed I.A.No.157 of 2008, seeking permission to deposit the balance amount of Rs.50,000/-. The said application has been entertained and allowed in by the impugned order dated 25.01.2017. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent has also deposited the amount of Rs.50,000/- on 06.02.2017 itself. The petitioners having slept over the matter for close to 10 years, have thought it fit to approach this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by filing two revisions, one to set aside the order permitting the respondent to deposit the balance sale consideration and another to strike off E.P.No.125 of 2018.

4. No doubt, there is no limitation for this Court to exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but, at the same time, it does not mean that the petitioners, who seek reliefs can approach this Court at their own convenience and seek for the extraordinary relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the petitioners contested the application in E.A.No.157 of 2008 by filing a counter. If they were really aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, the said order should have been challenged immediately in the manner known to law. That has not been admittedly done in the present case. On the contrary, the petitioners allowed the respondent to deposit the balance sale consideration within the time stipulated by the Trial Court, by way of extension on 06.02.2017 and even thereafter, they have participated in the execution proceedings, which was filed for execution of sale deed in favour of the respondent and at the stage when the execution petition was posted for arguments, the present revisions have been filed.

5. However, at the same time, I am unable to justify the reasons assigned by the Trial Court in allowing I.A.No.157 of 2008. None of the reasons assigned by the petitioner for not depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- within the period of one month have even been considered by the Trial Court. In fact, the objections of the respondent have also not been considered. In and by the impugned order, the Trial Court has only referred to the pendency of civil revision petition as against the dismissal order of the ex- parte set aside application and finding that the verdict in the civil revision petition will not affect the relief sought for, namely to seek permission to deposit the balance sale consideration and noticing that there is an inordinate delay in filing the petition, the Trial Court has held that this is a matter between the Court and the plaintiff.

6. Unfortunately, it is not so because under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, where there is non compliance of a condition to deposit the balance sale consideration, an option is available to the defendants also to seek rescission of the contract. Without even noticing the statutory provisions, the Trial Court, in a very casual manner, without even addressing the averments set out in the affidavit, has proceeded to entertain the application and permitted deposit of the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-. In the light of the above, I am inclined to set aside the order in I.A.No.157 of 2008 in O.S.No.318 of 2000 dated 25.01.2017.

7. Though there is a delay in approaching this Court by way of revision petitions, considering that there would be miscarriage of justice, if such an order is allowed to stand before the Court of law, I am inclined to interfere. In any event, insofar the revision petition for striking off EP.No.125 of 2018, I do not see any merit in the revision, since even in filing the revision, there is an inordinate delay and absolutely no explanation is forthcoming on the side of the petitioners as to why the said revision petition was not filed earlier in point of time and only after suffering adverse order in the suit and in the execution petition, the revision has been filed. Hence, there is no merit in CRP.No.4834 of 2023.

8. In fine, the CRP.No.4830 of 2023 is allowed and the order dated 25.01.2017 in I.A.No.157 of 2008 in O.S.No.318 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Trial Court to decide I.A.No.157 of 2008 afresh, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. CRP.No.4834 of 2023 is dismissed. However, E.P.No.125 of 2018 shall be kept in abeyance, till a decision is arrived at in I.A.No.157 of 2008 and subject to the result of I.A.No.157 of 2008, it shall be open to the Executing Court to either proceed with or dismiss the execution petition. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 18.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To The Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, Coimbatore District.

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP Nos.4830 & 4834 of 2023 18.08.2026