SURANA INDUSTRIES Vs. TUNOR ENGINEERING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is listed today under the caption for maintainability.

(2.) THE petitioner/Party -in -Person has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Prohibition to prohibit the first respondent from enforcing the order passed by the 4th respondent in this writ petition. When the writ petition was listed for hearing on 05.06.2014, the petitioner/party -in -person has made an endorsement giving up the fourth respondent from the array of parties.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the agreement of sale was entered into with the first respondent in the above stated circumstances. The first respondent also invoked the provisions of SARFAESI Act and issued notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act. When once the first respondent invoked SARFAESI Act and the third respondent also approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, the petitioner could not sell his property to the first respondent. Notwithstanding the same, the first respondent has filed W.P. No. 21888 of 2011 before this Court directing the second respondent to give necessary consent for execution of the sale deed as per the agreement of sale dated 10.08.2011. In the said writ petition, the petitioner was not a party. The writ petition was dismissed on 16.03.2012. As against the order dated 16.03.2012 in WP No. 21888 of 2011, the first respondent has filed review application No. 88 of 2012 and that was also dismissed by this Court on 22.10.2013. After dismissal of the review application, the first respondent has filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 105 of 2012 before the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur on 08.08.2012 praying for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 10.08.2011. According to the petitioner, such a suit filed by the first respondent is not maintainable and the relief sought for therein is non -est in the eyes of law. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the suit in O.S. No. 105 of 2012 is hit by the principles of res judicata in view of the fact that the first respondent has already filed WP No. 21888 of 2011 and also review application No. 88 of 2012 before this Court. In those circumstances, the petitioner has filed an application before the Civil Court under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC to reject the Plaint. As the petitioner attended to a writ proceedings before this Court, he could not appear before the Civil Court on 24.01.2014, on that date, he was set exparte and consequently, on 29.01.2014, a decree was passed in the suit. The suit was however contested by the second respondent and only thereafter, the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2014 came to be passed.