P. SITHIVINAYAGAM Vs. G. BHOOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice before admission was given to the respondent and both the parties are represented by counsel.

(2.) The arguments advanced by Mr.M.Mohamed Hasain, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.L.Kishore, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The grounds of revision, the copy of the order of the Court below and the other papers produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

(3.) The plaintiff in the original suit O.S.No.5 of 2007 is the petitioner in the revision petition. He filed the suit for specific performance on the basis of the suit agreement for sale dated 10.01.2006 contending that out of the agreed sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.2,90,000/- was paid on the date of agreement itself leaving a balance of Rs.10,000/- alone to be paid. It was also contended by the revision petitioner/plaintiff that though he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and expressed such readiness and willingness by issuing a notice, the respondent herein/defendant committed breach of contract, pursuant to which, he was constrained to file the suit for specific performance. The respondent herein/defendant, who admittedly received the summons, entered appearance by engaging a counsel and took time for filing written statement. When the suit stood listed on 02.07.2007, there was no representation for the respondent herein/defendant. Since written statement was not filed and there was no representation on the said date, the respondent herein/defendant was set ex-parte and an ex-parte trial was conducted, which resulted in a decree dated 05.07.2007, directing execution of the Sale Deed in terms of the suit agreement for sale. After the passing of the decree, the revision petitioner/plaintiff also deposited the balance amount of consideration.