KESAVAN Vs. JAYARAMA NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions arise out of orders passed in a suit for specific performance, in Execution Proceedings.

(2.) The revision in CRP. No.41 of 2017 arises out of dismissal of an Application under Sec. 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ( in short 'Specific Relief Act') seeking rescission of the contract. All the other revisions are arising only out of consequential orders and hence, if CRP. No.41 of 2017 is decided, the result of the same would have a direct impact on the other revisions as well.

(3.) I have heard Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.C.V.Vijaya Kumar & Ms.A.B.Reehana Begum, learned counsel for Petitioner in CRP. Nos.3456, 3548, 3549 & 3553 of 2025/ for Respondents in CRP. Nos.41 of 2017, 1692 & 1693 of 2018 and 1062 of 2025. Mr.V.Raghavachari, leraned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Indrajith, learned counsel for Respondents in CRP. Nos.3456, 3548, 3549 & 3553 of 2025 / for Petitioners in CRP. Nos.41 of 2017, 1692 & 1693 of 2018 and 1062 of 2025.