CHANDRAN Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Palakkad to issue the certified copy of the judgment dtd. 24/9/2014 passed in OS No.507/2011 and the order dtd. 22/12/2020 passed in IA No.1902/2020 in the suit. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit. The respondent in the original petition is the plaintiff in the suit.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to the original petition are; the respondent had filed the above suit against the petitioners for a decree of specific performance. The court below by Ext P1 judgment dtd. 24/9/2014 decreed the suit. Even though the petitioners had obtained the certified copy of the judgment, due to their financial stringency, they could not take a decision to challenge the judgment and decree. The certifiedcopy of the judgment was misplaced in the Advocate's office. There is no omission on the part of the petitioners. Now, with the support of the DSLA, Palakkad, an urgent application has been made to obtain the certified copy of the judgment. The petitioners have also made arrangements to obtain the pleadings and materials in the suit. The petitioners had also filed IA No.1902/2020, under Sec.28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, to rescind the contract. The said application was dismissed by the court below on 22/12/2020. The respondents are hastily proceeding with the execution petition. The petitioners have been advised that, there is a fair chance in Ext P1 judgment being reversed. The petitioners propose to file an appeal immediately on getting the certified copy of the judgment as indigent persons. In the meantime, if the property is delivered in the execution petition, it may render the appeal infructuous. Hence, the court below may be directed to issue the certified copies of the judgment and order passed in the suit and theapplication, and until such time the court below may be directed to defer the delivery of the property in the execution petition.

(3.) Heard:Smt.Shahna Karthikeyan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.