BINDHU Vs. S S VIJILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the fair and decreetal order passed by the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai, in E.A.No.223 of 2014 in E.P.No.1 of 2012 in O.S.No.77 of 2011 dated 11.01.2017.

(2.) The revision petitioner is defendant and the respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.77 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai. The suit is for specific performance of contract of sale. The plaintiff sent Ex.A2-suit notice to the defendant and the defendant refused it which has been marked as Ex.A3. The defendant called absent and set ex parte and the suit was decreed ex parte by judgment dated 21.09.2011. Thereafter, the decree- holder/respondent herein filed E.P.No.1 of 2012 for execution of sale deed, in which paper publication was effected. Subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff filed E.A.No.359 of 2013 for delivery of the property. After knowledge of passing of the ex parte decree, the defendant filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree with a petition to condone the delay of 458 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The Trial Court declined to condone the delay and dismissed the petition, against which, the defendant has come up with the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the revision petitioner has not received any notice or summon from the Court either in the suit or EP proceedings and only when the Court Amin visited to evict her from the plaint schedule property, she came to know about the ex parte decree. It is further contended that the revision petitioner purchased the property on 22.03.2011 from one Stanly John after payment of due sale consideration. While so, a sale agreement dated 11.04.2011 was created fraudulently by the respondent by forging the signature of the revision petitioner that is after 20 days from the date of sale deed.