M V JAYAVELU Vs. E UMAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed against the order and decree dated 06.02.2008 made in I.A. No. 234 of 2006 in O.S. No. 1 of 2006 on the file of Sub Court, Ranipet, Vellore District.

(2.) The first Defendant in O.S. No. 1 of 2006 on the file of Sub Court, Ranipet is the revision Petitioner. The Respondent herein filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 19.04.2000 directing the first Defendant, the revision Petitioner herein to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff or in the alternative to refund the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs with interest by way of damages from the date of suit and for permanent injunction. The first Defendant entered appearance, filed the statement and also filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 stating that the Document No. 1 on which the suit is filed cannot be received in evidence and it is only a rental deed and not duly stamped and the Plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the suit. That application was dismissed and against the same, this revision is filed.

(3.) Mr. K.V. Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision Petitioner submitted that the plaint is a clear abuse of process of law and is a vexatious suit and the documents filed in support of the plaint and the allegations made in the plaint did not disclose any cause of action for filing a suit for specific performance and the document No. 1 is only a rental deed and not duly stamped and document No. 2 cannot be construed as an agreement of sale and the plaint is filed on the basis of document No. 1 namely rental deed dated 19.04.2000 and hence the suit for specific performance is not maintainable and without appreciating these facts, the lower court dismissed the application.