A P SUBRAMANIAN Vs. R SIVASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner / plaintiff. No representation, either in person or through counsel for the respondent, though service of notice is sufficient.

(2.) THE Court below, Additional District Court / Fast Track Judge No. V, Tiruppur, has passed an order, dated 10. 08. 2007, based on the compromise decree in O. S. No. 374 of 2006 on the file of the said court. As per the compromise arrived at by the parties to the suit, it is seen that the memo of compromise, dated 10. 08. 2007 was signed by both the parties and filed before the court below. A compromise petition in I. A. No. 995 of 2007 was also filed and the following are the terms of compromise decree passed by the court below, as per the memo of compromise.

(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Ma. P. Thangavel, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the plaintiff was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,75,000/- to the first defendant, who is the first respondent herein, within two months from the date of the compromise memo and the first respondent herein, being the first defendant in the suit shall execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the suit property, after receiving the aforesaid amount and sale deed has to be executed and registered at the expense of the revision petitioner / plaintiff, as per the compromise memo, dated 10. 08. 2007. Under mortgage, the first respondent herein had to pay a sum of Rs. 5,80,000/- to the second defendant Bank. As per the compromise arrived at between the parties, the same was paid by the revision petitioner and he obtained a receipt for the said payment made by him.