R.KAMALANATHAN Vs. K.MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order, dated 10.08.2010 made in E.A. No. 159 of 2008 in E.P. No. 55 of 2007 in O.S. No. 381 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore, this revision has been preferred. It is seen that the aforesaid suit was filed by the respondents herein against the revision petitioner, seeking a decree directing the revision petitioner/defendant to execute sale deed in respect of the suit property, based on an agreement for sale dated, 20.08.2003 in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs at their cost, after receiving balance of sale consideration Rs. 5,00,000/-, failing which the Court below be pleased to execute the sale deed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant through an officer of the Court and alternatively direct the petitioner/defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 13,73,000/- to the respondents/plaintiffs with interest at 18% p.a. till the realisation of the entire amount.

(2.) It is seen that the suit was decreed on 26.06.2006, granting the relief of specific performance of contract with costs. Pursuant to the decree, Execution Petition in E.P. No. 55 of 2007 was filed by the respondents herein before the Court below and Execution Application in E.A. No. 159 of 2008 was filed under Order 21, Rule 11(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking delivery of possession of the property. The revision petitioner herein had filed counter stating that he had filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against him on 26.06.2006 along with an application in I.A. No. 446 of 2008 under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 509 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against him. However, by the impugned order, dated 10.08.2010 made in E.A. No. 159 of 2008, the Court below allowed the application filed by the respondents herein and, ordered delivery of possession, aggrieved by which, the revision has been preferred by the revision petitioner/Judgment-Debtor, who was the defendant in the suit.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the Court below has committed an error in ordering delivery of possession without a certified copy of the decree being produced. Even in the grounds of revision, the petitioner/Judgment-Debtor has stated that the Court below ought to have dismissed the application filed by the respondent, seeking delivery of possession, on the ground that no certified copy of the decree was filed and further contended that the suit property was sub-divided in the year 2004-2005 and hence, survey number was changed as S.F. No. 357/4, however, the E.P. Court, without considering the same, ordered delivery of possession. It is argued on behalf of the revision petitioner further that E.A. No. 159 of 2008 filed by the respondents/decree-holders, seeking delivery of possession, before the Court below was not legally sustainable, hence, it could have been dismissed.