K.LOGESHKUMAR Vs. N.RAVICHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the defendant in suit for specific performance in O.S. No.75 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thiruppur. The revision petitioner challenges the exparte decree passed in the said suit on 26/9/2013, invoking the extraordinary revisional powers available in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) I have heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.P.Valliappan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja. learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and Mr.V.P.Senguttuvel, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.K.R.Nishanth, learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5. The first respondent in the revision is no more and his heirs have already been impleaded, pending the revision.

(3.) Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner inviting my attention to the judgment passed in O.S. No.75 of 2013 would submit that the Trial Court has not followed the mandate of the Order XX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (in short 'CPC') and moreso, the suit being one for specific performance, the Trial Court ought to have given findings with regard to readiness and willingness before granting a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel Mr.N.Manoharan, would therefore state that the said judgment and decree is no judgment in the eye of law and nothing but a nullity, which can certainly be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.