N.K.SENKALIAPPAN Vs. CHITRA MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by an order allowing the petition in E.A.No.176 of 2013, seeking delivery of possession filed by the decree holder, the second respondent/judgment debtor has come up with this revision.

(2.) The first respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the contract dtd. 4/11/1987 against the revision petitioner and other respondents in O.S.No.568 of 1992, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore and obtained a decree. As per the terms of decree, the first respondent/plaintiff was directed to deposit balance sale consideration for Rs.25,000.00 within two months and the revision petitioner and other respondents, who were arrayed as defendants 1 to 3 in the suit were directed to execute a sale deed within two months thereafter and to hand over possession of the suit property, [i.e., subject matter of the agreement].

(3.) In pursuance of the same, the first respondent filed execution petition in E.P.No.185 of 2008, seeking execution of the sale deed and as the judgment debtors failed to execute the sale deed, the executing Court itself executed the sale deed as per the terms of the decree and the sale deed was registered on 2/4/2013. Recording the same, the execution petition was closed on 15/4/2013, thereafter, the first respondent filed execution application in E.A.No.176 of 2013 for delivery of the property and the same was opposed by the revision petitioner by raising the following points: