KUPPAN ALIAS DURAI Vs. A N ANNAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiffs in the suit are the revision petitioners. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O. S. No. 191 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif, Poonamallee praying for a decree for permanent injunction against the respondents who are the defendants in the suit from transferring and selling the suit land to any third parties while the agreement of sale stated to have been entered by the 1st defendant as a power agent of the 2nd defendant and the plaintiffs dated 29. 11. 1996 is subsisting.

(2.) THE first defendant who is stated to be the power agent of the second defendant has filed written statement on 10. 08. 2005.

(3.) THE plaintiffs filed application in I. A. No. 596 of 1998 for interim injunction which was dismissed on 03. 08. 1998 by the trial court observing that the suit is not maintainable since the suit is filed based on an agreement for sale. Subsequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed for default on 26. 11. 2002. The plaintiffs have filed an application in I. A. No. 2522 of 2002 under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the suit which was dismissed on 26. 11. 2002. In that application, it is seen that the court has made an endorsement on 02. 12. 2002 which reads as follows: "proof affidavit filed, heard and allowed" even though the said order states that as proof affidavit has been filed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that the proof affidavit mentioned by the trail court relates to the proof affidavit filed in the suit by the plaintiffs as evidence and not proof showing service of application in I. A. No. 2522 of 2002 in O. S. No. 191 of 1998 to the respondents herein who are the defendants.