GUNASEKAR Vs. BALASUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed against the fair and decretal order of the Principal District Judge's Court at Villupuram, dated 21.12.2016 in IA.No.53 of 2015 in OS.No.119 of 2010, thereby dismissing the petition filed for rejection of plaint.

(2.) The petitioner is the second defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent filed suit for specific performance on the strength of the agreement for sale dated 08.02.2003. While pending the suit, the petitioner filed petition for rejection of plaint and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the strength of the alleged agreement for sale dated 08.02.2003, the respondent issued notice on 14.07.2004, thereby called upon the petitioner to execute the sale deed on receipt of balance sale consideration. On receipt of summon, the petitioner issued reply notice on 22.07.2004 denying the very execution of sale agreement. Thereafter, only on 07.02.2009, the present impugned suit is filed for specific performance on the strength of the very same agreement for sale dated 08.02.2003 and as such the suit is clearly barred under Article 54 of Limitation Act. The respondent already filed suit for bare injunction in respect of the very same property in OS.No.144 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram and thereafter it was transferred to the Additional District Court, Kallakurichi and renumbered as OS.No.3 of 2008. The very cause of action itself for filing the suit is present agreement for sale dated 08.02.2003. Even then, the respondent failed to sought for any relief of specific performance. The said suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2011. While pending the suit, the present suit has been filed without any leave of the Court under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. Therefore, the present suit is directly hit under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and it is liable to be rejected. Therefore, on these two grounds, the plaint is liable to be rejected. But unfortunately, the court below without considering the above grounds raised by the petitioner, dismissed the petition. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments: