LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-1635

K SUBRAMANIAN Vs. S JEYARAMAN

Decided On April 10, 2018
K Subramanian Appellant
V/S
S Jeyaraman Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the order dated 18.04.2016 passed in I.A.Nos.233 and 234 of 2015 in O.S.No.48 of 2011 by the Additional District Court, Dindigul.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the 2nd defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.48 of 2011 on the file of the Additional District Court, Dindigul. Originally, the said suit was filed by the respondent against one M.Kaliappan seeking the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement dated 21.07.2008 alleged to have been executed by M.Kaliappan in favour of the respondent or alternatively for refund of Rs.10 Lakhs paid as sale advance amount by the respondent. The revision petitioner purchased the suit property from the 1st defendant/M.Kaliappan on 05.05.2011 prior to the institution of the suit by the respondent. After filing of the suit, the petitioner was impleaded as 2nd defendant in the suit. Due to non filing of the written statement, the petitioner/2nd defendant was set ex-parte on 14.09.2012 and thereafter, on 17.11.2012, the 1st defendant was also set ex- parte and ultimately, ex-parte judgment and decree was passed in the suit on 17.11.2012.

(3.) The petitioner/2nd defendant filed applications in I.A.Nos.233 and 234 of 2015 praying to condone the delay of 395 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree and to set aside the ex-parte decree, stating that he was suffering from jaundice at the relevant point of time, on account of which, he was unable to meet his Counsel and give instructions. The respondent contested the condone delay application contending that pursuant to the decree, he deposited the balance sale consideration and initiated execution proceedings; the 1st defendant filed an application in I.A.No.65/2013 to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against him which was dismissed; the petitioner is not a bona fide purchaser; the defendants collusively created the sale deed dated 05.05.2011 and that the petitioner has not provided the details of treatment of the illness suffered by him.