LAKSHMANASAMY Vs. R JAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the above two civil revision petitions. Aggrieved over the orders, two in number, made by the Principal Sub-Judge, Pondicherry, dismissing I. A. No. 860/2003 in O. S. No. 263/ 95 seeking rescission of the contract, pursuant to which, orlginally a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff. and allowing E. P. No. 24/2002, directing the defendants in the original suit in O. S, No. 263/ 95 to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff /respondent, the petitioner/5th defendant has broughtforth these civil revision petitions.

(2.) THE Court heard the learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioner/ the 5th defendant and also the learned counsel for the respondent /plaintiff.

(3.) ON hearing the submissions made by both sides, the following facts would emerge as admitted facts. The respondent /plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner herein /5th defendant and others. As per the averments in thp plaint, the total sale consideration was Rs. 9,06,250/- and the consideration originally paid was rs. 5,00,000/- and the balance of consideration payable by the plaintiff was found as rs. 4,06,250/-, On contest, a decree dated 21-6-2001 was passed in favour of the plaintiff. No time limit was fixed for payment of the balance of the sale consideration. On receipt of a copy of the decree and judgment on 31-7-2001, the plaintiff took notice on the 5th defendant/ the petitioner herein and others to receive the balance of consideration and execute the sale deed. Despite service, no reply was forthcoming from the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff filed E. P. No. 24/2002 seeking execution of the decree and on the same day, the lodgment schedule in O. S. No. 263/95 for payment of balance of consideration was also filed. Pending the same, the respondents/defendants filed I. A. No. 860/2003 on 24-2-2003 to rescind the contract originally entered into between the parties under Section 28 (1) of specific Relief Act wherein a counter was filed and the same was also pending enquiry. The plaintiff also filed E. A. No. 133/2003 for issuance of chalan on 6-3-2003. The lower Court after hearing the parties regarding the maintainability of the E. P. which was raised by the defendant/petitioner herein, passed an order finding the E. P. maintainable and directed the respondents to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was also directed to deposit the balance of sale consideration within a week thereform. The said order was passed on 2-1-2004. While the matter stood thus, the application in 1. A. No. 860/2003 filed by the defendants for rescission of the contract was dismissed by the lower Court by an order dated 4-8-2004. Aggrieved over the said orders, the 5th defendant has brought forth these civil revision petitions before this Court.