THULASI @ THULASIRAM Vs. K NAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present petition against the order dated 12-10-2017 on I.As made in O.S. No.141 of 2008 allowing the applications filed by defendants No.2 and 3 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with cost of Rs.300/- each.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance to enforce the agreement dated 3-5-2006. On 28-6-2007, the present respondents purchased the property from defendant No.1 during the subsistence of aforesaid agreement to sell. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.S. No.141 of 2008 to enforce the agreement and also to declare the sale deed dated 28-6-2007 as null and void and also for alternative relief of refund of the advance amount. The defendant No.1 engaged a counsel to contest the matter, but did not file the written statement. On 25-7-2009, the suit came to be decreed directing to refund the partial advance amount.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed R.F.A No.877 of 2009. After hearing both the parties, this Court by the judgment and decree dated 6-4-2015, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to be dealt with in accordance with law. After remand, the respondents/defendants No.2 and 3 filed two applications, one under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reopen the case and another application under Section XVIII Rule17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall the evidence of P.W.1 contending that the defendants have not cross-examined P.W.1. After disposal of the suit, the plaintiff has filed Regular First Appeal in R.F.A. No.877 of 2009 which came to be disposed of with a clear direction for framing an issue "whether defendants No.2 and 3 prove that they are bonafide purchasers for value of the property without any knowledge of the earlier transaction as between the plaintiff and defendant No.1".