K. PERUMAL Vs. D. MURALIDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.D.Balachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pa.Sudesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. The impugned order of the trial court and other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

(2.) THE order of the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vaniambadi dated 10.03.2011 made in I.A. No.838 of 2010 in O.S. No.9 of 2005 has been challenged in the present revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent herein filed O.S. No.9 of 2005 on the file of the trial court for the relief of specific performance based on an agreement for sale dated 19.01.2004.

(3.) IN the supporting affidavit, the petitioner averred that during the pendency of the suit, a compromise was effected at the intervention of the elders of the village on 13.01.2007 and he paid a sum of Rs.25,000/ - together with interest calculated at the rate of 1% per mensem; that the respondent, who promised to withdraw the suit, clandestinely obtained an ex -parte decree on 16.06.2007; that the same came to the notice of the revision petitioner only when he received notice in the execution petition and that he caused verification through his advocate and therefore there was a delay of 1080 days in filing the application to set aside the ex -parte decree.