SIBIN Vs. THANKAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order allowing the applications in I.A.Nos.432/2016 and 433/2016 in O.S.No.667/2013 of the Sub Court, Chavakkad, dated 28.03.2016, the defendant/respondent came up with this revision. The said applications were filed for setting aside the ex parte decree passed and for condoning the delay of 693 days. The lower court has allowed both the applications by condoning the delay and by setting aside the ex parte decree, against which this revision is filed.

(2.) The main challenge raised by the defendant is that there was no sufficient reason for the absence of the defendant and that the delay which comes to 693 days has not been properly explained by the plaintiff. It is also submitted that after the passing of the ex parte decree for specific performance of the contract, the decree was executed by executing the deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiff in accordance with the contract for sale which is the subject matter of the suit. Hence, it was submitted that it is not at all proper on the part of the lower court to condone the delay of 693 days and to allow the application for setting aside the ex parte decree.

(3.) In the matter of specific performance of a contract for sale, while passing a decree, either ex parte or otherwise, the courts are bound by the requirement under section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and are not expected to pass a decree, either ex parte or otherwise, merely because it is lawful to do so. The discretion vested with the courts must be exercised in a sound and reasonable manner. A decree for specific performance of the contract without exercising the discretion as mandated under section 20 of the Specific Relief Act is bad in law. A Division Bench of this Court in Antony K.O. and another v. M.K.Krishnankutty Menoki and others (2017 (1) KHC 479: 2017(1) KLJ 357: ILR 2017 (1) Ker. 444: AIR 2017 NOC 202) (in which I was a party) had settled the law under section 20 of the Specific Relief Act thus: