K KANNAN Vs. SATHIYAVANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representative of the defendant in O.S.No.132 of 2005 is the revision petitioner. THE respondent filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 5.11.2004 in O.S.No.132 of 2005 against the mother of the revision petitioner and the suit was decreed on 28.6.2006 directing the respondent to pay Rs.35,000/- to the mother of the revision petitioner as per agreement of sale dated 5.11.2004 and if the defendant, namely mother of the revision petitioner failed to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff can approach the court to execute the sale deed through court. As the defendant failed to receive sale consideration and execute the sale deed, the respondent filed E.P.No.52 of 2008 for execution of the sale deed and the sale deed was executed by the court on 17.8.2009. THEreafter, the decree holder/respondent filed E.A.No.88 of 2011 for delivery of the property and along with that application, revision petitioner was impleaded as LR of the deceased defendant. He entered appearance through his counsel and the case was adjourned for filing counter several times and on 30.9.2011, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner represented no instruction and therefore, the court below ordered delivery by 15.11.2011 and aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the lower court without passing speaking order simply ordered delivery. The order of the lower court is erroneous and when the learned counsel reported no instruction, without issuing notice to the revision petitioner, the court below ought not to have ordered delivery.