V S SRIDHARAN Vs. BABY MEHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.02.2016 passed in I.A. No. 1260 of 2014 in O.S. No. 714 of 2001 by the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli. The petitioner is the defendant/judgment debtor and the respondent is the plaintiff/decree holder in the suit in O.S. No. 714 of 2001. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale before the II Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli. The suit was decreed ex-parte for non-filing of written statement on 06.08.2003. As per decree, the petitioner has to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed. Three months time was granted. The respondent deposited the balance sale consideration on 30.07.2004. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 54 of 2005 to condone the delay of 431 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. The said application was dismissed for default on 02.08.2005. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 101 of 2009 to condone the delay of 1325 days in filing a petition to restore the said petition. The said application was dismissed on 11.10.2011. Against that order, civil revision petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court and the same was dismissed. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 1260 of 2014 praying for order to rescind the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent, as the respondent failed to deposit the balance sale consideration before the trial Court on time. The respondent deposited the balance sale consideration after one year and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to execution of sale deed. The respondent filed E.P. No. 59 of 2004. Subsequently, the respondent filed E.P. No. 27 of 2005 for cost of the suit and sought the attachment of Rs. 3 lakhs deposited on 04.08.2004 by her. Both E.Ps were dismissed on 12.10.2006. Subsequently, the respondent filed E.P. Nos. 105 and 106 of 2006 and the same were allowed and sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent 14.09.2007. The valuable property of the petitioner was sold for meagre amounts. Therefore, the petitioner filed application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act to rescind the contract.

(2.) The respondent in the counter denied all the allegations made by the petitioner. The respondent has paid balance sale consideration nearly 11 years back in E.A. No. 3809 of 2004. After depositing all the amount, the Court executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent. The respondent filed E.A. No. 106 of 2006 for possession of the property and the same was allowed ex-parte. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.A. No. 18 of 2007 and the same was also disposed of and the sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent on 14.09.2007. The petitioner has not filed any appeal against the said order. The petitioner filed E.A. No. 7 of 2009 to set aside the ex-parte order and the same was dismissed on 21.01.2014. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner filed C.M.A. No. 47 of 2014 before this Court and the same was dismissed on 23.04.2014. Again, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition in S.L.P. No. 16883 of 2014 and the same was returned by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 47 C.P.C., before the I Additional District Court and the same was dismissed. Against that order, petitioner filed civil revision petition in C.R.P. No. 1593 of 2014 and the same was dismissed by this Court. The claim of the petitioner to rescind the contract filed after almost 11 years of deposit of balance sale consideration is barred by limitation.

(3.) The learned Judge considering all the facts and materials on record and the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the application along with other applications by a common order. Against the said order of dismissal, the present civil revision petition is filed.