(1.) THE petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The 1st and 2nd petitioners entered into an agreement with respondents 1 and 2 for the sale of property admeasuring 1.71 acres. As respondents 1 and 2 were not able to honour their commitment of purchase the property after payment of balance sale consideration within the stipulated time, the validity of the agreement automatically lapsed. There was intimidation by the first respondent. The 1st respondent and his henchmen stormed into the house of the eldest son of the 1st petitioner and intimidated the family members to accept their demand for extension of period of the agreement. Regarding the above incident, a crime was registered. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.22/2011 before the Sub Court, Mavelikkara for specific performance of the agreement for sale.
(3.) PETITIONERS have filed a reply affidavit. In the reply affidavit, the petitioners have produced Ext.P2 writ petition and Ext.P3 judgment. It is their case inter alia that the first respondent was in Saudi Arabia and he reached only on 23.4.2012. Though the passport entries have been produced as Ext.R2(e), the entires do not confirm the fact that the 1st respondent was not in India. It is stated that the 2nd and 3rd respondents came out of a black Scorpio Car at 6 p.m. It is alleged that the first petitioner could see a person resembling the 1st respondent sitting in the front seat of the car and 1st respondent is the person who was sitting in the car. The writ petition was filed suppressing the pendency of O.S.No.28/2012 filed by them seeking specific performance of the agreement. The first respondent is the 2nd petitioner in the W.P.(C)No.32386/2011. Going by the passport details, it could be seen that at the time of filing of the writ petition, the 1st respondent was not in India. The passport details produced by the 1st respondent cannot lend credence to his version regarding his absence in India.