P POONGOTHAI Vs. K SAGUNTHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Civil Revision Petitions herein are being filed by the same petitioner and the issue involved in the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same and therefore common order is passed in both the Civil Revision Petitions.

(2.) The case of the revision petitioner in both the revisions is that the respondent herein has filed a suit for specific performance and permanent Injunction in O.S.No.47 of 2003, against the revision petitioner on the basis of a sale agreement dated 22.05.1996. The said suit came to be decreed partly by the Trial Court by decreeing the relief of specific performance and declining the relief of Permanent Injunction. In the meantime aggrieved over the negatived portion of decree i.e rejection to grant Permanent Injunction, the respondent herein filed appeal before this Court in A.S.No.706 0f 2005 and the same was allowed by granting permanent Injunction in favour of the respondent herein by Judgment and Decree dated 11.07.2011. The above appeal came to be allowed expartedly by this Hon'ble Court, since the counsel engaged at that particular point of time by the revision petitioner failed to appear and conduct the appeal.

(3.) Thereupon the revision petitioner filed an application before this Court to set aside the Ex-parte Decree passed against him in Appeal Suit in A.S.No.706 0f 2005 and the same is pending. Being so, the revision petitioner received a notice in the Execution proceedings in E.P.No.17 of 2012 filed by the respondent, whereby it was found that after a lapse of 9 years, the respondent deposited the balance sale consideration before the trial Court and the trial Court was about to proceed with execution of sale deed, in consonance with the decree. Admittedly the Decree is of the year 2003, wherein directing the respondent/plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration within a period of one month from the date of decree. Whereas without depositing the sale consideration in time i.e., within the stipulated period of one month, the respondent was allowed to deposit the balance amount in the year 2012 i.e., on 21.06.2012. Further such deposit was made by the respondent, in the light of the order made by the trial Court in I.A.No.360 of 2012 by allowing, the respondent's application under Section 148 of CPC for Enlargement of Time to deposit the balance sale consideration. Thereupon the revision petitioner filed two Interlocutory Applications in E.P.No.17 of 2012, one under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act to rescind the entire contract and restore the possession of suit property with the revision petitioner and the other under Order 21 Rule 26 of CPC to terminate the Execution Proceedings.